Sport

SWINDON TOWN: Wray set to act on 'cheat' slur

FORMER Swindon Town chairman Jeremy Wray has said he will consider “the best way to respond” after an article branding the club as “cheats” who committed “financial doping” under his stewardship was published in a national newspaper on Sunday.

The Football League Paper ran a piece by chief writer Chris Dunlavy which accused Swindon of behaving “immorally” in their pursuit of the League Two title last season. Dunlavy suggested that “every time Swindon added to their wage bill, they knew somebody else was going unpaid” and that “Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division”.

Wray, who was replaced as chairman by Sir William Patey in October, was unhappy with the intimations of the article.

“It is scary how badly researched a piece can be,” he said. “I wouldn’t want to comment on it other than I’m appalled by the inaccuracy of the article and the obvious libel that is there.

“I will discuss with other people first as to how you respond and the right way to respond. It is a pertinent insult to me, it is an insult to the club, it is an insult to Paolo.

“I’ve read it and I’m reflecting on it and I’ll think of the best way to respond to it. It’s scary that somebody can be so ill-informed. That’s one thing, to be able to write it in a way that the editor accepts is another.”

Headlined “Swindon: the ‘cheats’ who really prospered”, the article appears to overlook some of the more critical elements of recent revelations at the County Ground. It fails to recognise that the debts are owed to the major investors themselves, that no outstanding money is due to HMRC or small creditors and that the club has no bank overdrafts.

Only on Friday did the Adveriser print an interview with chief executive Nick Watkins, in which he stated: “The club has no debt, we have debts that are due to the shareholders but those debts in the event of the club being sold will be treated very kindly. “But there is no debt to HMRC, there is no debt to the banks, we have no bank overdrafts, we have no major creditor issues.”

The Adver received an email from Watkins yesterday which stated that Swindon Town are aware of the article and are considering their legal position.

It's outrageous that a newspaper can write a 'sensational' headline without any facts backing it up. Lets hope the people involved do take action.
I imagine the paper involved thought 'its just a small club, Swindon Town who won't be able to clear their name' & respond to the article. How wrong they might be!!! Disgraceful.

It's outrageous that a newspaper can write a 'sensational' headline without any facts backing it up. Lets hope the people involved do take action.
I imagine the paper involved thought 'its just a small club, Swindon Town who won't be able to clear their name' & respond to the article. How wrong they might be!!! Disgraceful.Jets there'd

Hmmm I think the Football lLeague Paper and its owners may rue the day they made such commets.
The Swindon owners could easily take them on in the courts such is their combined wealth.
I would demand an apology in writing and compensation for defamation if I were J Wray.
Wish you well J Wray go kick some a**.

Hmmm I think the Football lLeague Paper and its owners may rue the day they made such commets.
The Swindon owners could easily take them on in the courts such is their combined wealth.
I would demand an apology in writing and compensation for defamation if I were J Wray.
Wish you well J Wray go kick some a**.bowralbob

smirg kcab wrote:
Good on you Jeremy sue them for 13 million
Onwards and upwards

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The comments made by this moron (who is I must add, from Oxford), could potentially jeopardise any buyout of the club, and stopping the club paying what is owed to Mr.Black. Therefore this seems like a reasonable amount. Go J Wray!

[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote:
Good on you Jeremy sue them for 13 million
Onwards and upwards[/p][/quote]Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The comments made by this moron (who is I must add, from Oxford), could potentially jeopardise any buyout of the club, and stopping the club paying what is owed to Mr.Black. Therefore this seems like a reasonable amount. Go J Wray!ChrisWantageRed

I normally buy the Football League paper, didn't have it in my local ASDA yesterday, probably just as well, won't be buying it again though, the timing seiously worries me with a takeover imminent, but like most fans, I support Jeremy Wray in action he chooses to take...COYR

I normally buy the Football League paper, didn't have it in my local ASDA yesterday, probably just as well, won't be buying it again though, the timing seiously worries me with a takeover imminent, but like most fans, I support Jeremy Wray in action he chooses to take...COYRdelta419

Since the "Administration" story broke we have been ridiculed by other clubs fans and been called cheats who stole the 2nd division title last season! The Shrewsbury fans forum was full of it both brfore and after Saturdays match and no doubt this will drag on all season now? Not much we can do about that but it is embarrassing so this is now a chance to put the record straight and I hope Jeremy and Swindon Town FC sue this paper, if they don't then the story will be assumed to be true and we will be fair game for all the media to carry on slandering our name! Chelsea and Manchester City to name just 2 premier league clubs are being financed by the personal wealth of their owners yet there isn't the same furore surrounding those clubs?

Since the "Administration" story broke we have been ridiculed by other clubs fans and been called cheats who stole the 2nd division title last season! The Shrewsbury fans forum was full of it both brfore and after Saturdays match and no doubt this will drag on all season now? Not much we can do about that but it is embarrassing so this is now a chance to put the record straight and I hope Jeremy and Swindon Town FC sue this paper, if they don't then the story will be assumed to be true and we will be fair game for all the media to carry on slandering our name! Chelsea and Manchester City to name just 2 premier league clubs are being financed by the personal wealth of their owners yet there isn't the same furore surrounding those clubs?Lazaat

castle9 wrote:
Email the editor at the address above to express your disgust at the article and state that you will not be buying this rag again.

I'm sure that guy will get lots of emails from irate Town fans today!

[quote][p][bold]castle9[/bold] wrote:
Email the editor at the address above to express your disgust at the article and state that you will not be buying this rag again.[/p][/quote]I'm sure that guy will get lots of emails from irate Town fans today!Lazaat

I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story.
Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum).
For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action.
How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC.
Sue them Jeremy for all they have.

I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story.
Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum).
For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action.
How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC.
Sue them Jeremy for all they have.LeGod

The thing is, the more fans of other clubs and newspapers try to run us down, they are only bringing the fans of Swindon town closer together. We will soon be adopting the Milwall Mind Set, of, noone loves us, but we dont care!
ONWARDS AND UPWARDS

The thing is, the more fans of other clubs and newspapers try to run us down, they are only bringing the fans of Swindon town closer together. We will soon be adopting the Milwall Mind Set, of, noone loves us, but we dont care!
ONWARDS AND UPWARDSjedthered

Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paper

Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paperLondon Red

jayden wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.

"I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter!

[quote][p][bold]jayden[/bold] wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.[/p][/quote]"I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter!Lanky

London Red wrote:
Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paper

Not only the journalist but also the Editor who sanctioned this article, the buck stops at the top LR!

[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote:
Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paper[/p][/quote]Not only the journalist but also the Editor who sanctioned this article, the buck stops at the top LR!Lazaat

London Red wrote:
Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paper

Not only the journalist but also the Editor who sanctioned this article, the buck stops at the top LR!

Well,

I think we should at least, lodge a complaint of sorts with the Complaints Commission.

At least, this may give our chance to give our side of the story......

JW and new consortium to own Town.......Come on Jeser, come take over the Town, we love you :-)))

Louis :-))

[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote:
Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paper[/p][/quote]Not only the journalist but also the Editor who sanctioned this article, the buck stops at the top LR![/p][/quote]Well,
I think we should at least, lodge a complaint of sorts with the Complaints Commission.
At least, this may give our chance to give our side of the story......
JW and new consortium to own Town.......Come on Jeser, come take over the Town, we love you :-)))
Louis :-))louiscassius

London Red wrote:
Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paper
Not only the journalist but also the Editor who sanctioned this article, the buck stops at the top LR!”

- Here,Here!

Lazaat says...
7:43am Mon 21 Jan 13
London Red wrote:
Delighted by this news
.
There is only one cheat and that is the journalist - if you can call him that - who made up a story to get printed
.
Hopefuly we will read the following adticle
.
Dunlavy: the chest who didn't prosper
.
Following a totally inaccurate article printed last week we would like to apologise to all connected with Swindon Town FC and inform you Dunlavy is no longer working at the paper
Not only the journalist but also the Editor who sanctioned this article, the buck stops at the top LR!”
- Here,Here!Another view

Excellent post LeGod. People like Durham just exist to provoke a reaction and it's obvious he was just out to cause trouble without looking into the issue first with a bit of checking. Talksport just deal in soundbites and the truth is secondary to getting the phone lines going

Excellent post LeGod. People like Durham just exist to provoke a reaction and it's obvious he was just out to cause trouble without looking into the issue first with a bit of checking. Talksport just deal in soundbites and the truth is secondary to getting the phone lines goingHelpme234

Beginning to sound like Millwall: "no one likes us". But this time lets hit back and take the paper and reporter to court and sue them for as much as is possible. Why is it that the FA and the scum press always love to target Swindon Town FC ? Are they frightened at what damage to the big clubs our fantastic team can achieve on the pitch. As I say, this time lets hit back and hit back hard. COYR

Beginning to sound like Millwall: "no one likes us". But this time lets hit back and take the paper and reporter to court and sue them for as much as is possible. Why is it that the FA and the scum press always love to target Swindon Town FC ? Are they frightened at what damage to the big clubs our fantastic team can achieve on the pitch. As I say, this time lets hit back and hit back hard. COYRRobin of Andover

This accusation has left us no alternative, we have to sue. It can't be ignored brcause as Lazaat said we will be assumed to be guilty if we don't and every cheap shot will take it for granted we are fair game to take a pop at.

For it to be printed just as we may entering into due diligence with a prospective buyer, makes it even worse. The BBC should also be added to the writ as it was their trash article that first mentioned the A word without any research or knowledge as to the truth.

For all those considering e-mailing the editor of the football league paper, (and I am considering that option), please ensure you don't lower the name of Swindon Town with abusive language or threats. Complaints will be better acknowledged when they are short and to the point,

I hope ther will be no delay with issueing the writ, because as sure as eggs every other National will be following the lies that have been printed.

This accusation has left us no alternative, we have to sue. It can't be ignored brcause as Lazaat said we will be assumed to be guilty if we don't and every cheap shot will take it for granted we are fair game to take a pop at.
For it to be printed just as we may entering into due diligence with a prospective buyer, makes it even worse. The BBC should also be added to the writ as it was their trash article that first mentioned the A word without any research or knowledge as to the truth.
For all those considering e-mailing the editor of the football league paper, (and I am considering that option), please ensure you don't lower the name of Swindon Town with abusive language or threats. Complaints will be better acknowledged when they are short and to the point,
I hope ther will be no delay with issueing the writ, because as sure as eggs every other National will be following the lies that have been printed.old town robin

Agree with all of the above.
.
I've always bought this paper since it started and to be fair, to date it has always been very supportive of the lower league teams and Paolo himself.
.
This article represents the scum of the earth, lazy, sensationalist and dredger style reporting which has no place in a paper of any level. It lacks 'real' facts, is based on biased supposition and is an awful piece of business for the paper.
.
As per above the editor and reporter should now be hauled through the courts to face a 'CLEAR' libel charge.
.
I WILL buy the paper next week as I FULLY expect to see a FULL FRONT PAGE apology with a FULL centre page spread in-depth analysis of the situation which clearly explains where we are.
.
Just can't believe the editor saw fit to publish given the headline and wording - exceptionally naive!

Agree with all of the above.
.
I've always bought this paper since it started and to be fair, to date it has always been very supportive of the lower league teams and Paolo himself.
.
This article represents the scum of the earth, lazy, sensationalist and dredger style reporting which has no place in a paper of any level. It lacks 'real' facts, is based on biased supposition and is an awful piece of business for the paper.
.
As per above the editor and reporter should now be hauled through the courts to face a 'CLEAR' libel charge.
.
I WILL buy the paper next week as I FULLY expect to see a FULL FRONT PAGE apology with a FULL centre page spread in-depth analysis of the situation which clearly explains where we are.
.
Just can't believe the editor saw fit to publish given the headline and wording - exceptionally naive!SAPFanSTFC

Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this?

Hmmmmm

Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this?
Hmmmmmstfc2012

smirg kcab wrote: Good on you Jeremy sue them for 13 million Onwards and upwards

Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The comments made by this moron (who is I must add, from Oxford), could potentially jeopardise any buyout of the club, and stopping the club paying what is owed to Mr.Black. Therefore this seems like a reasonable amount. Go J Wray!

The idiot should be sued just for coming from Oxfford!

Cheap journalism in the vein of 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'. This isn't even a good story. Sue them for all they're worth!

[quote][p][bold]ChrisWantageRed[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]smirg kcab[/bold] wrote: Good on you Jeremy sue them for 13 million Onwards and upwards[/p][/quote]Seems perfectly reasonable to me. The comments made by this moron (who is I must add, from Oxford), could potentially jeopardise any buyout of the club, and stopping the club paying what is owed to Mr.Black. Therefore this seems like a reasonable amount. Go J Wray![/p][/quote]The idiot should be sued just for coming from Oxfford!
Cheap journalism in the vein of 'never let the truth get in the way of a good story'. This isn't even a good story. Sue them for all they're worth!Since 1950

SAPFanSTFC wrote:
Agree with all of the above.
.
I've always bought this paper since it started and to be fair, to date it has always been very supportive of the lower league teams and Paolo himself.
.
This article represents the scum of the earth, lazy, sensationalist and dredger style reporting which has no place in a paper of any level. It lacks 'real' facts, is based on biased supposition and is an awful piece of business for the paper.
.
As per above the editor and reporter should now be hauled through the courts to face a 'CLEAR' libel charge.
.
I WILL buy the paper next week as I FULLY expect to see a FULL FRONT PAGE apology with a FULL centre page spread in-depth analysis of the situation which clearly explains where we are.
.
Just can't believe the editor saw fit to publish given the headline and wording - exceptionally naive!

Re: Apology ...Small chance of that SAP with a full page spread, more like a small paragraph wedged into a nondescript page that will need a magnifying glass to read if they deem it necessary, which I think they will try and brave it out .. unless we kick up a stink with constructive and not abusive points.

[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
Agree with all of the above.
.
I've always bought this paper since it started and to be fair, to date it has always been very supportive of the lower league teams and Paolo himself.
.
This article represents the scum of the earth, lazy, sensationalist and dredger style reporting which has no place in a paper of any level. It lacks 'real' facts, is based on biased supposition and is an awful piece of business for the paper.
.
As per above the editor and reporter should now be hauled through the courts to face a 'CLEAR' libel charge.
.
I WILL buy the paper next week as I FULLY expect to see a FULL FRONT PAGE apology with a FULL centre page spread in-depth analysis of the situation which clearly explains where we are.
.
Just can't believe the editor saw fit to publish given the headline and wording - exceptionally naive![/p][/quote]Re: Apology ...Small chance of that SAP with a full page spread, more like a small paragraph wedged into a nondescript page that will need a magnifying glass to read if they deem it necessary, which I think they will try and brave it out .. unless we kick up a stink with constructive and not abusive points.Chish and Fips

old town robin wrote:
This accusation has left us no alternative, we have to sue. It can't be ignored brcause as Lazaat said we will be assumed to be guilty if we don't and every cheap shot will take it for granted we are fair game to take a pop at.

For it to be printed just as we may entering into due diligence with a prospective buyer, makes it even worse. The BBC should also be added to the writ as it was their trash article that first mentioned the A word without any research or knowledge as to the truth.

For all those considering e-mailing the editor of the football league paper, (and I am considering that option), please ensure you don't lower the name of Swindon Town with abusive language or threats. Complaints will be better acknowledged when they are short and to the point,

I hope ther will be no delay with issueing the writ, because as sure as eggs every other National will be following the lies that have been printed.

Spot on OTR, maybe I'm being paranoid but we seem to be continually being pushed around and treated unfairly by people who look upon us as "easy prey" and too weak to defend ourselves! And this goes back to our demotion after beating Sunderland at Wembley all those years ago. Since then we have been saddled with the nickname Swindleton! And now it has all kicked off again, it is embarrassing and hurtful to us fans so I urge JW and the board to sue this rag and too consider Talksport and other media companies who have blackened our name, please do this for the fans and to stop ant further character assasignations on our club! I agree 100% with OTR that any emails should be short, sharpe and to the point, please do not give that ignoramus of an editor any ammunition.

[quote][p][bold]old town robin[/bold] wrote:
This accusation has left us no alternative, we have to sue. It can't be ignored brcause as Lazaat said we will be assumed to be guilty if we don't and every cheap shot will take it for granted we are fair game to take a pop at.
For it to be printed just as we may entering into due diligence with a prospective buyer, makes it even worse. The BBC should also be added to the writ as it was their trash article that first mentioned the A word without any research or knowledge as to the truth.
For all those considering e-mailing the editor of the football league paper, (and I am considering that option), please ensure you don't lower the name of Swindon Town with abusive language or threats. Complaints will be better acknowledged when they are short and to the point,
I hope ther will be no delay with issueing the writ, because as sure as eggs every other National will be following the lies that have been printed.[/p][/quote]Spot on OTR, maybe I'm being paranoid but we seem to be continually being pushed around and treated unfairly by people who look upon us as "easy prey" and too weak to defend ourselves! And this goes back to our demotion after beating Sunderland at Wembley all those years ago. Since then we have been saddled with the nickname Swindleton! And now it has all kicked off again, it is embarrassing and hurtful to us fans so I urge JW and the board to sue this rag and too consider Talksport and other media companies who have blackened our name, please do this for the fans and to stop ant further character assasignations on our club! I agree 100% with OTR that any emails should be short, sharpe and to the point, please do not give that ignoramus of an editor any ammunition.Lazaat

LeGod wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.

Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. "he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.

[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.[/p][/quote]Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. "he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.Oi Den!

LeGod wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.

Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. &quot;he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.

Den I think its more what is NOT said riles people - they appear to gloss over STFC for some reason - and most find Steve C irritating and boring, which adds to it.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.[/p][/quote]Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. "he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.[/p][/quote]Den I think its more what is NOT said riles people - they appear to gloss over STFC for some reason - and most find Steve C irritating and boring, which adds to it.Chish and Fips

stfc2012 wrote:
Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this? Hmmmmm

They did say we "bought" promotion but it went much further than that. You should be able to get hold of a copy today. It is on sale Sundays and Mondays - £1.50. Whether you want to add to their coffers might be another matter!

[quote][p][bold]stfc2012[/bold] wrote:
Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this? Hmmmmm[/p][/quote]They did say we "bought" promotion but it went much further than that. You should be able to get hold of a copy today. It is on sale Sundays and Mondays - £1.50. Whether you want to add to their coffers might be another matter!Oi Den!

All of this started by the local BBC in the original article last Thursday. Chris Wise you attempted to cover your tracks by changing the original headline and then you tried to talk your way out of it on the radio Saturday....be ashamed of yourself!

All of this started by the local BBC in the original article last Thursday. Chris Wise you attempted to cover your tracks by changing the original headline and then you tried to talk your way out of it on the radio Saturday....be ashamed of yourself!Stickshaker

Sad yet again more crap, I'm afraid damage has been done.Also when you look at how BBC Swindon broke the news of the club for sale it makes you stop and think.
Although on Sports sat it was clarified that rearch had been done.
As for this latest slur not the type of publicity needed when trying to sell the club?????
Like us all we hope somebody out there likes us and to be honest when you look at or wage bill said to be 250.000 per month I think come the end of Feb something drastic will happen to our club.
let us hope a buyer can be found ASAP however in this climate who Know's
As for Steve Claridge not a nice person at has allways disliked the Town thats clear from the FL Show

Sad yet again more crap, I'm afraid damage has been done.Also when you look at how BBC Swindon broke the news of the club for sale it makes you stop and think.
Although on Sports sat it was clarified that rearch had been done.
As for this latest slur not the type of publicity needed when trying to sell the club?????
Like us all we hope somebody out there likes us and to be honest when you look at or wage bill said to be 250.000 per month I think come the end of Feb something drastic will happen to our club.
let us hope a buyer can be found ASAP however in this climate who Know's
As for Steve Claridge not a nice person at has allways disliked the Town thats clear from the FL Showmallorca

LeGod wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.

Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. &quot;he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.

Den I think its more what is NOT said riles people - they appear to gloss over STFC for some reason - and most find Steve C irritating and boring, which adds to it.

Claridge has constantly belittled the efforts of STFC in the past by waving away any achievements by making excuses for the opposition or by choosing his words carefully and often saying them through gritted teeth as in the case where Claridge couldn't think of what to say about a manager who achieved promotion at the manager's first attempt when asked a direct question by Maniche....well he has got a good budget.....then goes on to flatter 2nd 3rd and 4th etc.
.
Even Maniche pulled him up on something one day....Oi Den - you can't defend Claridge in any real sense or form.

[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.[/p][/quote]Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. "he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.[/p][/quote]Den I think its more what is NOT said riles people - they appear to gloss over STFC for some reason - and most find Steve C irritating and boring, which adds to it.[/p][/quote]Claridge has constantly belittled the efforts of STFC in the past by waving away any achievements by making excuses for the opposition or by choosing his words carefully and often saying them through gritted teeth as in the case where Claridge couldn't think of what to say about a manager who achieved promotion at the manager's first attempt when asked a direct question by Maniche....well he has got a good budget.....then goes on to flatter 2nd 3rd and 4th etc.
.
Even Maniche pulled him up on something one day....Oi Den - you can't defend Claridge in any real sense or form.SAPFanSTFC

Den...
" We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us."

Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh !

Den...
" We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us."
Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh !Chish and Fips

Chish, why the hell should we be concerned about the media not talking about us? There are 72 clubs in the League. They can't be talking about us all the time. I believe we get our fair share of attention and most of it is positive. And, like it or not, much of that is down to the money that has been put into the club. Let's keep our sights trained on the right target.

Chish, why the hell should we be concerned about the media not talking about us? There are 72 clubs in the League. They can't be talking about us all the time. I believe we get our fair share of attention and most of it is positive. And, like it or not, much of that is down to the money that has been put into the club. Let's keep our sights trained on the right target.Oi Den!

SAPFanSTFC wrote:
Agree with all of the above.
.
I've always bought this paper since it started and to be fair, to date it has always been very supportive of the lower league teams and Paolo himself.
.
This article represents the scum of the earth, lazy, sensationalist and dredger style reporting which has no place in a paper of any level. It lacks 'real' facts, is based on biased supposition and is an awful piece of business for the paper.
.
As per above the editor and reporter should now be hauled through the courts to face a 'CLEAR' libel charge.
.
I WILL buy the paper next week as I FULLY expect to see a FULL FRONT PAGE apology with a FULL centre page spread in-depth analysis of the situation which clearly explains where we are.
.
Just can't believe the editor saw fit to publish given the headline and wording - exceptionally naive!

Re: Apology ...Small chance of that SAP with a full page spread, more like a small paragraph wedged into a nondescript page that will need a magnifying glass to read if they deem it necessary, which I think they will try and brave it out .. unless we kick up a stink with constructive and not abusive points.

Yep VERY important - as others have also highlighted.....all complaints should be non-abusive and to the point.
.
I would recommend that you have read the article in full before making the complaint....as painful as it may be to buy or more likely borrow the paper (never too many copies around).
.
As mentioned I'm very surprised at the language and tone as the paper has given us some very nice pieces in the past....this one is however 'libellous' in it's very nature which makes it an awful piece of journalism.

[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
Agree with all of the above.
.
I've always bought this paper since it started and to be fair, to date it has always been very supportive of the lower league teams and Paolo himself.
.
This article represents the scum of the earth, lazy, sensationalist and dredger style reporting which has no place in a paper of any level. It lacks 'real' facts, is based on biased supposition and is an awful piece of business for the paper.
.
As per above the editor and reporter should now be hauled through the courts to face a 'CLEAR' libel charge.
.
I WILL buy the paper next week as I FULLY expect to see a FULL FRONT PAGE apology with a FULL centre page spread in-depth analysis of the situation which clearly explains where we are.
.
Just can't believe the editor saw fit to publish given the headline and wording - exceptionally naive![/p][/quote]Re: Apology ...Small chance of that SAP with a full page spread, more like a small paragraph wedged into a nondescript page that will need a magnifying glass to read if they deem it necessary, which I think they will try and brave it out .. unless we kick up a stink with constructive and not abusive points.[/p][/quote]Yep VERY important - as others have also highlighted.....all complaints should be non-abusive and to the point.
.
I would recommend that you have read the article in full before making the complaint....as painful as it may be to buy or more likely borrow the paper (never too many copies around).
.
As mentioned I'm very surprised at the language and tone as the paper has given us some very nice pieces in the past....this one is however 'libellous' in it's very nature which makes it an awful piece of journalism.SAPFanSTFC

Chish and Fips wrote:
Den...
&quot; We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us."

Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh !

Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back.
.
You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.

[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote:
Den...
" We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us."
Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh ![/p][/quote]Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back.
.
You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.SAPFanSTFC

Chish and Fips wrote:
Den... &quot; We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh !

I think you've misread my posts, Chish, and then quoted me out of context. I emailed a complaint to the Editor of the FL Paper yesterday. I don't think that's a pacifist approach. What I am saying is that we should concentrate on this very serious and important matter - not get distracted by fair comment - or lack of comment!

[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote:
Den... " We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh ![/p][/quote]I think you've misread my posts, Chish, and then quoted me out of context. I emailed a complaint to the Editor of the FL Paper yesterday. I don't think that's a pacifist approach. What I am saying is that we should concentrate on this very serious and important matter - not get distracted by fair comment - or lack of comment!Oi Den!

The comments above are all relevant although one or two reflect a passionate distaste of what has been written. I agree with the main thread which is all STFC fans should email the FL editor (and also Talksport) and express disappointment (politely) at what can only be described as appalling journalism that was scant on facts and long on libel and slander (written and spoken falsehoods). Even the Current Bun gets more accuracy behind its sensationalist reports.

As an aside, I have emailed the FL ed - but no response. Has anyone heard from them yet?

.... and yes JW, go for their financial throat - you deserve an apology (as do we, the Fan base).

Somehow I keep imagining if these comments had been aimed at Man Utd then a certain Knight of the Realm would be battering down the FL door and hairdrying one or two members of staff.

Get out your letters of apology FL and on the front page in bold letters!

Oh, and I dont have the courage of my own convictions so here is my passion - your a git Dunlavy.....

The comments above are all relevant although one or two reflect a passionate distaste of what has been written. I agree with the main thread which is all STFC fans should email the FL editor (and also Talksport) and express disappointment (politely) at what can only be described as appalling journalism that was scant on facts and long on libel and slander (written and spoken falsehoods). Even the Current Bun gets more accuracy behind its sensationalist reports.
As an aside, I have emailed the FL ed - but no response. Has anyone heard from them yet?
.... and yes JW, go for their financial throat - you deserve an apology (as do we, the Fan base).
Somehow I keep imagining if these comments had been aimed at Man Utd then a certain Knight of the Realm would be battering down the FL door and hairdrying one or two members of staff.
Get out your letters of apology FL and on the front page in bold letters!
Oh, and I dont have the courage of my own convictions so here is my passion - your a git Dunlavy.....John Young's Grumpy

I'm glad the club has spotted this story and are going to act. I had already written an e-mail to the editor which I was about to send. I'll leave it in the clubs' hands now, and consider my position regarding the only paper I buy apart from the Adver and Gazzette and Herald.

I'm glad the club has spotted this story and are going to act. I had already written an e-mail to the editor which I was about to send. I'll leave it in the clubs' hands now, and consider my position regarding the only paper I buy apart from the Adver and Gazzette and Herald.Marmite Soldier

Chish and Fips wrote: Den... &quot; We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh !

Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back. . You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.

I don't see that the FL Show has any case to answer. If you think linking their presentation in any way with a possibly libellous press article is worthwhile, I think you are misguided. And I object strongly to being called pacifist in this matter. I am no more pacifist now than when I, along with others, fought strongly against the Football League in 1990. Everyone should feel free to express their views. I just think we are very unwise if we don't focus on the serious matter in hand.

[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: Den... " We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh ![/p][/quote]Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back. . You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.[/p][/quote]I don't see that the FL Show has any case to answer. If you think linking their presentation in any way with a possibly libellous press article is worthwhile, I think you are misguided. And I object strongly to being called pacifist in this matter. I am no more pacifist now than when I, along with others, fought strongly against the Football League in 1990. Everyone should feel free to express their views. I just think we are very unwise if we don't focus on the serious matter in hand.Oi Den!

Lazaat wrote:
I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Yep - Even quoting exerts could be construed in this way but think a court would have trouble on that score...but not on the whole thing.
---.
We might get away with several small exert in different posts / threads or from different IDs...still a bit iffy though.
---.
Anone feeling brave?...and who has enough time to retype the whole article?

[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Yep - Even quoting exerts could be construed in this way but think a court would have trouble on that score...but not on the whole thing.
---.
We might get away with several small exert in different posts / threads or from different IDs...still a bit iffy though.
---.
Anone feeling brave?...and who has enough time to retype the whole article?SAPFanSTFC

stfc2012 wrote:
Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this?

The article then goes on to spout lots of utter tripe like "every time they added to there wage pill they knew someone else was going unpaid" completely libellous stuff written by a Journo from low and behold O****d

[quote][p][bold]stfc2012[/bold] wrote:
Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this?
Hmmmmm[/p][/quote]http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Headline :Swindon the "cheats" that really prospered .
Sub Headline : They bought promotion by not paying £13m bills.
The article then goes on to spout lots of utter tripe like "every time they added to there wage pill they knew someone else was going unpaid" completely libellous stuff written by a Journo from low and behold O****dLambourn Red

LeGod wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.

Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. &quot;he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.

Some sense at last!!

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.[/p][/quote]Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. "he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.[/p][/quote]Some sense at last!!stfc2012

Would just love J. Wray to have his moment and one for the club in court where all the guilty parties who have deliberately set out to deceive and slander get totally reamed and shafted by the legal system. Jailed and fined.
Not only for our club but others that have suffered because of some idiot set out to conspire their downfall. Time for the truth to come out.

NAIL'EM JAY WRAY

Would just love J. Wray to have his moment and one for the club in court where all the guilty parties who have deliberately set out to deceive and slander get totally reamed and shafted by the legal system. Jailed and fined.
Not only for our club but others that have suffered because of some idiot set out to conspire their downfall. Time for the truth to come out.
NAIL'EM JAY WRAYthe wizard

Chish and Fips wrote: Den... &quot; We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh !

Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back. . You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.

I don't see that the FL Show has any case to answer. If you think linking their presentation in any way with a possibly libellous press article is worthwhile, I think you are misguided. And I object strongly to being called pacifist in this matter. I am no more pacifist now than when I, along with others, fought strongly against the Football League in 1990. Everyone should feel free to express their views. I just think we are very unwise if we don't focus on the serious matter in hand.

Not expecting FL to reply or the need to justify themselves - its a personal opinion that they have missed or glossed over issues.
I don't want to be embroiled in explaining my comments any more.
Like you say lets concentrate on the important things and avoid side tracking for personal reasons.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: Den... " We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh ![/p][/quote]Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back. . You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.[/p][/quote]I don't see that the FL Show has any case to answer. If you think linking their presentation in any way with a possibly libellous press article is worthwhile, I think you are misguided. And I object strongly to being called pacifist in this matter. I am no more pacifist now than when I, along with others, fought strongly against the Football League in 1990. Everyone should feel free to express their views. I just think we are very unwise if we don't focus on the serious matter in hand.[/p][/quote]Not expecting FL to reply or the need to justify themselves - its a personal opinion that they have missed or glossed over issues.
I don't want to be embroiled in explaining my comments any more.
Like you say lets concentrate on the important things and avoid side tracking for personal reasons.Chish and Fips

To add to the debate and ensure we are all a bit more informed, a quick bit of research (there is a hint Mr Dunlavy) shows the legal definition of defamation as:

Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In common law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).

Me thinks that JW, STFC and our Fans have a case for an apology.... let alone any financial recompense.

When I signed on as a Town fan I knew it would always be a roller-coaster journey, but I am still there and hangin on tight!

Regards to all

To add to the debate and ensure we are all a bit more informed, a quick bit of research (there is a hint Mr Dunlavy) shows the legal definition of defamation as:
Defamation—also called calumny, vilification, traducement, slander (for transitory statements), and libel (for written, broadcast, or otherwise published words)—is the communication of a statement that makes a claim, expressly stated or implied to be factual, that may give an individual, business, product, group, government, religion, or nation a negative or inferior image. This can be also any disparaging statement made by one person about another, which is communicated or published, whether true or false, depending on legal state. In common law it is usually a requirement that this claim be false and that the publication is communicated to someone other than the person defamed (the claimant).
Me thinks that JW, STFC and our Fans have a case for an apology.... let alone any financial recompense.
When I signed on as a Town fan I knew it would always be a roller-coaster journey, but I am still there and hangin on tight!
Regards to allJohn Young's Grumpy

stfc2012 wrote:
Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this?

The article then goes on to spout lots of utter tripe like "every time they added to there wage pill they knew someone else was going unpaid" completely libellous stuff written by a Journo from low and behold O****d

Cheers. I think we need to not be victims though and link Oxford to it. Also, not you, but people just look for the bad. This article looks unjust. But stfc looking to be victims because Claridge says we should do well with budget - he's absolutely spot on! Our spending has been a joke. That doesn't mean Wray deserves that headline but we did pretty much throw money at every problem and only until now we can't. We need a scapegoat be it Claridge, Oxford, Patey etc. Clubs must take criticism.

From what I gather that article contains untruths and was not researched dobthey should be hammered. However, there will be hints if truth in it.

[quote][p][bold]Lambourn Red[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]stfc2012[/bold] wrote:
Assuming everyone has actually read the article - not just the 2 lines printed here? I have not so cannot fully comment but its obviously not a nice thing to read. I wonder why he writes this now and not during last season? What does he mean by buying a player and another not getting paid. I wouldn't be so sensitive to cry over being called play off contenders instead of winners or look for other instances where we are a bit overlooked and make a meal out of it like some. However, this is a proper attack on the club and I'd like to read exactly what they are accusing us of. If its that we 'bought' the title then well we did bank roll a silly amount of money and were wasteful with much of it. Our fans used to accuse Crawley of doing the same amongst other clubs and everyone knows about Chelsea and Man City. It's something everyone hates in other clubs but don't mind when it's your own - like winning a penalty from a dive or any other decision that goes your way. I'd like to know exactly what they are saying and why in such a nasty tone. What has prompted this?
Hmmmmm[/p][/quote]http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Headline :Swindon the "cheats" that really prospered .
Sub Headline : They bought promotion by not paying £13m bills.
The article then goes on to spout lots of utter tripe like "every time they added to there wage pill they knew someone else was going unpaid" completely libellous stuff written by a Journo from low and behold O****d[/p][/quote]Cheers. I think we need to not be victims though and link Oxford to it. Also, not you, but people just look for the bad. This article looks unjust. But stfc looking to be victims because Claridge says we should do well with budget - he's absolutely spot on! Our spending has been a joke. That doesn't mean Wray deserves that headline but we did pretty much throw money at every problem and only until now we can't. We need a scapegoat be it Claridge, Oxford, Patey etc. Clubs must take criticism.
From what I gather that article contains untruths and was not researched dobthey should be hammered. However, there will be hints if truth in it.stfc2012

If anyone wishes to email the editor then it makes sense to copy in the idiot who actually wrote the article.

Editor of that rag:
David.emery@theleagu
epaper.com
Reporter who wrote the article:
chris.dunlavy@thelea
guepaper.com
If anyone wishes to email the editor then it makes sense to copy in the idiot who actually wrote the article.Lazaat

Unfortunately there seem's to be no end to these sensational headlines. Not good for when you are looking for a buyer, Does anyone know how the meeting went on Saturday? Heard 1 potential investor pull out.

Haven't read the article, lets just hope there's no substance to it.
Questions will now be asked though,
Unfortunately there seem's to be no end to these sensational headlines. Not good for when you are looking for a buyer, Does anyone know how the meeting went on Saturday? Heard 1 potential investor pull out.Davidsyrett

The scum are cr@pping themselves on their forum after spouting all sorts of lies about bailiffs being at the CG etc etc they have now deleted the thread with a warning from the site admin about posting stories unless you can back them up LOL

The scum are cr@pping themselves on their forum after spouting all sorts of lies about bailiffs being at the CG etc etc they have now deleted the thread with a warning from the site admin about posting stories unless you can back them up LOLLambourn Red

Providing I used the right email address, they may be blocking emails to our friend.

The one to the Editor appears to have gone through okay.

Tried to email - got :
Delivery to the following recipient failed permanently:
'chris.dunlavy@thele
aguepaper.com'
Providing I used the right email address, they may be blocking emails to our friend.
The one to the Editor appears to have gone through okay.Chish and Fips

Same Ole Same Ole did you also notice Points West went to town on the story last week , not a mention when we win 5-0 and 4-0 but as soon as there is some dirt to be thrown they are straight on it , same with Rovers ground development what good news that is , they are going out the football league but will have a nice 20k seater stadium . Its always been that way we just have to suck it up , Remember Roger Malone was it ? that talked about the small team from the Railway Sidings when we were on our way to Wembley to play Arsenal in the League Cup :0) . COYR

Same Ole Same Ole did you also notice Points West went to town on the story last week , not a mention when we win 5-0 and 4-0 but as soon as there is some dirt to be thrown they are straight on it , same with Rovers ground development what good news that is , they are going out the football league but will have a nice 20k seater stadium . Its always been that way we just have to suck it up , Remember Roger Malone was it ? that talked about the small team from the Railway Sidings when we were on our way to Wembley to play Arsenal in the League Cup :0) . COYRhertz

jayden wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.

&quot;I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter!

First on here yesterday you muppet.

[quote][p][bold]Lanky[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jayden[/bold] wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.[/p][/quote]"I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter![/p][/quote]First on here yesterday you muppet.jayden

LeGod wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.

Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. &quot;he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.

Yes i did the same yesterday den.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
I really hope JW and the club take action against the FL rag and also Talksport for that idiot Adrian Durham as well and also the BBC for Claridges commets as well. Just goes to show the ignorance of people of how without any facts they come up with a story. Starnage how this guy from the FL rag is from Oxford (says it all to me another piece of scum). For the article that has been written in the FL rag this guy should be sued to the hilt and hopefully put his rag paper out of existence and i hope JW takes severe action. How the hell the BBC can also come out with things about our club after all the cover ups they have been involved in as well over the last 30+ years is beyond belief. You can get a more corrupt lot than the BBC. Sue them Jeremy for all they have.[/p][/quote]Claridge's comments? I watch the FL Show every week, and the only thing Claridge has ever said which might be considered unflattering is that PDC has had a good budget to work with, i.e. "he is doing well but so he should be". Plenty of other people have said the same. Let's not get carried away and try to ban free speech and fair comment.
.
The disgraceful article in the FL Paper is another matter entirely. The Editor received my complaint yesterday.
.
I don't know whether Dunlavy is from Oxford or not, but he has often written complimentary articles about us in the past, so I think the point is completely irrelevant. We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us.[/p][/quote]Yes i did the same yesterday den.jayden

jayden wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.

&quot;I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter!

First on here yesterday you muppet.

I thought what Lanky posted about you was unfair and un called for Jayden!

[quote][p][bold]jayden[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lanky[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jayden[/bold] wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.[/p][/quote]"I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter![/p][/quote]First on here yesterday you muppet.[/p][/quote]I thought what Lanky posted about you was unfair and un called for Jayden!Lazaat

Chish and Fips wrote: Den... &quot; We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh !

Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back. . You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.

I don't see that the FL Show has any case to answer. If you think linking their presentation in any way with a possibly libellous press article is worthwhile, I think you are misguided. And I object strongly to being called pacifist in this matter. I am no more pacifist now than when I, along with others, fought strongly against the Football League in 1990. Everyone should feel free to express their views. I just think we are very unwise if we don't focus on the serious matter in hand.

Haven't linked the two - they are two separate arguments but both are valid.
.
Did not label you a pacifist at all - two separate statements.....so maybe you need re-check and react quite so quickly Oi Den.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Chish and Fips[/bold] wrote: Den... " We are in danger of making ourselves look very silly if we start bringing this kind of thing into it - and blasting our scattergun around at anyone who appears to criticise us." Posting a comment on Fans forum is one thing - making headlines in a national football paper is on another level - taking the pacifist option is sometimes not the best option, and could be viewed as we are in fact guilty of this accusation. Lamb to the slaughter eh ![/p][/quote]Have to agree whole-heartedly on this occasion - all too often the pacifist style approach bites us back. . You don't have to agree Oi Den but you can't defend the FL Show on this matter with any level of credibility or credulity.[/p][/quote]I don't see that the FL Show has any case to answer. If you think linking their presentation in any way with a possibly libellous press article is worthwhile, I think you are misguided. And I object strongly to being called pacifist in this matter. I am no more pacifist now than when I, along with others, fought strongly against the Football League in 1990. Everyone should feel free to express their views. I just think we are very unwise if we don't focus on the serious matter in hand.[/p][/quote]Haven't linked the two - they are two separate arguments but both are valid.
.
Did not label you a pacifist at all - two separate statements.....so maybe you need re-check and react quite so quickly Oi Den.SAPFanSTFC

SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.

SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.Oi Den!

Oi Den - agree with your outlook in the matter. Spot on, perspective please people and a backlash in the right way is what is called for.
.
I would also back the club wholeheartedly should they decide to seek legal action.
.
As for other fans and their views, let them have their 5 minutes, the truth always comes out in the end, and by that time, we'll be in the championship under new ownership.
.
That lot down the road can keep straining their necks looking up at us from far below. Small club, unfinished ground, no ambition other than defeating rivals, going nowhere fast.

Oi Den - agree with your outlook in the matter. Spot on, perspective please people and a backlash in the right way is what is called for.
.
I would also back the club wholeheartedly should they decide to seek legal action.
.
As for other fans and their views, let them have their 5 minutes, the truth always comes out in the end, and by that time, we'll be in the championship under new ownership.
.
That lot down the road can keep straining their necks looking up at us from far below. Small club, unfinished ground, no ambition other than defeating rivals, going nowhere fast.avo

While I agree totally with what has been said above, and I did say last night that it is time for the club to call a press conference to put the record straight. (On the Saturday match thread)

That said, our chairman, Wild Bill Patey, has done nothing to stop the press from having a field day at our expense. In fact obvious by his absence instead of setting the record straight. If somebody wrongly accuses you of something you defend yourself, for the last week the club has done nothing. Radio, press and TV have all got their knickers in a twist because the original statement by Patey misled most. True they should check their facts and read the whole thing before commenting, but also somebody who allegedly a negotiator should choose his words more carefully and address inaccuracies when they occur. In reality he has done not one jot, and if he cannot address this then what can he do ? the damage has now been done, but we have at no point come out to correct anyone. Tesco horse for Patey, or perhaps a camel is more in keeping, I've got the blummin hump with him now.

While I agree totally with what has been said above, and I did say last night that it is time for the club to call a press conference to put the record straight. (On the Saturday match thread)
That said, our chairman, Wild Bill Patey, has done nothing to stop the press from having a field day at our expense. In fact obvious by his absence instead of setting the record straight. If somebody wrongly accuses you of something you defend yourself, for the last week the club has done nothing. Radio, press and TV have all got their knickers in a twist because the original statement by Patey misled most. True they should check their facts and read the whole thing before commenting, but also somebody who allegedly a negotiator should choose his words more carefully and address inaccuracies when they occur. In reality he has done not one jot, and if he cannot address this then what can he do ? the damage has now been done, but we have at no point come out to correct anyone. Tesco horse for Patey, or perhaps a camel is more in keeping, I've got the blummin hump with him now.the wizard

Oi Den! wrote:
SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.

We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary.
...
Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear.
...
Let's agree to disagree on this one.

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.[/p][/quote]We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary.
...
Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear.
...
Let's agree to disagree on this one.SAPFanSTFC

I've rung the office this morning to speak directly to the Editor, to hear exactly what he has to say for himself. Funnily enough, he's not in today.. Lucky for him - I'll still be calling back tomorrow to make my feelings very clear.

I've rung the office this morning to speak directly to the Editor, to hear exactly what he has to say for himself. Funnily enough, he's not in today.. Lucky for him - I'll still be calling back tomorrow to make my feelings very clear.International Robin2

Oi Den! wrote:
SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.

We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary.
...
Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear.
...
Let's agree to disagree on this one.

With you on all accounts there SAP ...

[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.[/p][/quote]We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary.
...
Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear.
...
Let's agree to disagree on this one.[/p][/quote]With you on all accounts there SAP ...Chish and Fips

International Robin2 wrote:
I've rung the office this morning to speak directly to the Editor, to hear exactly what he has to say for himself. Funnily enough, he's not in today.. Lucky for him - I'll still be calling back tomorrow to make my feelings very clear.

He won't comment Robin2,because legally he's on a very sticky wicket,I expect his lawyers have told him not to comment and print an apology!!!!!!!!!

[quote][p][bold]International Robin2[/bold] wrote:
I've rung the office this morning to speak directly to the Editor, to hear exactly what he has to say for himself. Funnily enough, he's not in today.. Lucky for him - I'll still be calling back tomorrow to make my feelings very clear.[/p][/quote]He won't comment Robin2,because legally he's on a very sticky wicket,I expect his lawyers have told him not to comment and print an apology!!!!!!!!!the don69

Emotionally, everything that has been said is right. However, shouldn't underestimate how difficult and risky libel and defamation cases are. Everything that has taken place at the club would be put under the microscope.
One of the best ways to respond, in addition to any possible legal action, is to go on winning football matches.
As far as the 'FL Show' is concerned, Claridge has been positive about us on numerous occasions but I think he just doesn't like PdC - says more about him!!

Emotionally, everything that has been said is right. However, shouldn't underestimate how difficult and risky libel and defamation cases are. Everything that has taken place at the club would be put under the microscope.
One of the best ways to respond, in addition to any possible legal action, is to go on winning football matches.
As far as the 'FL Show' is concerned, Claridge has been positive about us on numerous occasions but I think he just doesn't like PdC - says more about him!!eastmidsred

LeGod wrote:
My complaint has just been submitted to the editor and i hope he gets in-undated with them as well and is fired for his write up.

I have sent a very polite but to the point email to the editor and the reporter!

[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
My complaint has just been submitted to the editor and i hope he gets in-undated with them as well and is fired for his write up.[/p][/quote]I have sent a very polite but to the point email to the editor and the reporter!Lazaat

Like many, I watch the FLS (usually on IPlayer so as to skip to the L1 bit - the Town in particular) and see it as just a way of seeing small clips of our rivals and also rans. Whilst I also would like to see/here the comments of the pundits and managers, I know that they are heavily edited to suit the mood of the day/week. Last season, the BBC did post highlight clips of each match on their web site. At least that way you watch them devoid of any bias or derogitory comments.

Anyone know if Late Kick Off show is comming back. We do get a bit more coverage and gossip on there and Leroy R does seem to tell it as it is on that show.

Like many, I watch the FLS (usually on IPlayer so as to skip to the L1 bit - the Town in particular) and see it as just a way of seeing small clips of our rivals and also rans. Whilst I also would like to see/here the comments of the pundits and managers, I know that they are heavily edited to suit the mood of the day/week. Last season, the BBC did post highlight clips of each match on their web site. At least that way you watch them devoid of any bias or derogitory comments.
Anyone know if Late Kick Off show is comming back. We do get a bit more coverage and gossip on there and Leroy R does seem to tell it as it is on that show.Rebel_phish

Oi Den! wrote: SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.

We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary. ... Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear. ... Let's agree to disagree on this one.

Fair enough. I think we do get that recognition. Our turn will come round again, possibly even this week - although as Tranmere are the home side they may be featured more strongly than us. The programme might have taken the view that we are likely to be featured a lot before the end of the season so there wasn't much point in making a big deal of us on Saturday. There is a balance to be struck. It would probably take only a couple of features on us within a few weeks for the BBC to be accused by fans of other clubs of putting out the Swindon Town Show!

[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.[/p][/quote]We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary. ... Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear. ... Let's agree to disagree on this one.[/p][/quote]Fair enough. I think we do get that recognition. Our turn will come round again, possibly even this week - although as Tranmere are the home side they may be featured more strongly than us. The programme might have taken the view that we are likely to be featured a lot before the end of the season so there wasn't much point in making a big deal of us on Saturday. There is a balance to be struck. It would probably take only a couple of features on us within a few weeks for the BBC to be accused by fans of other clubs of putting out the Swindon Town Show!Oi Den!

Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do!
.
Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.

Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do!
.
Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.Oi Den!

Oi Den! wrote:
Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do!
.
Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.

Den,

Here, Here!!

Very well put.

That was one of the big differences Andrew Fitton made.

Clear, precise and no cover ups.....Just tell it how it is straight away.

I loved the honesty, we as fans might not have liked it, but we always felt like we were getting the truth.

And most importantly, before any of the other media had even wind of anything........

Louis :-((((

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do!
.
Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.[/p][/quote]Den,
Here, Here!!
Very well put.
That was one of the big differences Andrew Fitton made.
Clear, precise and no cover ups.....Just tell it how it is straight away.
I loved the honesty, we as fans might not have liked it, but we always felt like we were getting the truth.
And most importantly, before any of the other media had even wind of anything........
Louis :-((((louiscassius

Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.

As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.

This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.

Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.
As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.
This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.LeGod

LeGod wrote:
Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.

As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.

This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.

If that paper is sued there will be a lot of other twitchy bums! William Patey is no PR guru, oh to have Jeremy Wray back!

[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.
As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.
This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.[/p][/quote]If that paper is sued there will be a lot of other twitchy bums! William Patey is no PR guru, oh to have Jeremy Wray back!Lazaat

Rebel_phish wrote:
Like many, I watch the FLS (usually on IPlayer so as to skip to the L1 bit - the Town in particular) and see it as just a way of seeing small clips of our rivals and also rans. Whilst I also would like to see/here the comments of the pundits and managers, I know that they are heavily edited to suit the mood of the day/week. Last season, the BBC did post highlight clips of each match on their web site. At least that way you watch them devoid of any bias or derogitory comments. Anyone know if Late Kick Off show is comming back. We do get a bit more coverage and gossip on there and Leroy R does seem to tell it as it is on that show.

I've recently discovered that highlights of all Football League games are on skysports.com. It's much easier than skipping to the right part of the FL show.

[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
Like many, I watch the FLS (usually on IPlayer so as to skip to the L1 bit - the Town in particular) and see it as just a way of seeing small clips of our rivals and also rans. Whilst I also would like to see/here the comments of the pundits and managers, I know that they are heavily edited to suit the mood of the day/week. Last season, the BBC did post highlight clips of each match on their web site. At least that way you watch them devoid of any bias or derogitory comments. Anyone know if Late Kick Off show is comming back. We do get a bit more coverage and gossip on there and Leroy R does seem to tell it as it is on that show.[/p][/quote]I've recently discovered that highlights of all Football League games are on skysports.com. It's much easier than skipping to the right part of the FL show.stfclondon

LeGod wrote:
Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.

As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.

This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.

If that paper is sued there will be a lot of other twitchy bums! William Patey is no PR guru, oh to have Jeremy Wray back!

Hi Laz, Patey is a PR nightmare, and he has had ample opportunity to put things right and has chosen to do.........NOTHING.

Maybe he thinks he is above it all, but for an educated man he has a high degree of ignorance when it comes to PR and issues surrounding our football club, and that is precisely part of the job he has been brought in to do, to promote the club so it is seen in its best light. The Adver I believe tried getting hold of him last week but to no avail. Ignorance at its peak.

[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.
As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.
This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.[/p][/quote]If that paper is sued there will be a lot of other twitchy bums! William Patey is no PR guru, oh to have Jeremy Wray back![/p][/quote]Hi Laz, Patey is a PR nightmare, and he has had ample opportunity to put things right and has chosen to do.........NOTHING.
Maybe he thinks he is above it all, but for an educated man he has a high degree of ignorance when it comes to PR and issues surrounding our football club, and that is precisely part of the job he has been brought in to do, to promote the club so it is seen in its best light. The Adver I believe tried getting hold of him last week but to no avail. Ignorance at its peak.the wizard

LeGod wrote:
Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.

As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.

This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.

If that paper is sued there will be a lot of other twitchy bums! William Patey is no PR guru, oh to have Jeremy Wray back!

Hi Laz, Patey is a PR nightmare, and he has had ample opportunity to put things right and has chosen to do.........NOTHING.

Maybe he thinks he is above it all, but for an educated man he has a high degree of ignorance when it comes to PR and issues surrounding our football club, and that is precisely part of the job he has been brought in to do, to promote the club so it is seen in its best light. The Adver I believe tried getting hold of him last week but to no avail. Ignorance at its peak.

Hi wiz, yes got to agree with your summing up Re: William Patey! Seems the media including that awful rag assumed as no one from the club bothered to set the record straight then we must be guilty? Shocking really, the clubs name is being dragged through the mud and we are despised by fans of other clubs yet our chairman hasn't seen fit to put the record straight! Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. I really hope the club do take legal action against that newspaper if only to stop the scurrilous accusations against us!!!

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]LeGod[/bold] wrote:
Oi Den - Totally agree with your comments. ok Patey has come in to do a job but is so aloof from us fans and probably doesnt even like football or any fans. You get that impression with him that is the sort of person he is.
As has already been stated at least with Wray and Fitton they were open and told us what was going on and now we have taken 10 steps backwards.
This information that came out last week should have been nipped in the bud before hitting the press and now the whole football world knows about it and i dont really understand the logic of the club letting it get out.[/p][/quote]If that paper is sued there will be a lot of other twitchy bums! William Patey is no PR guru, oh to have Jeremy Wray back![/p][/quote]Hi Laz, Patey is a PR nightmare, and he has had ample opportunity to put things right and has chosen to do.........NOTHING.
Maybe he thinks he is above it all, but for an educated man he has a high degree of ignorance when it comes to PR and issues surrounding our football club, and that is precisely part of the job he has been brought in to do, to promote the club so it is seen in its best light. The Adver I believe tried getting hold of him last week but to no avail. Ignorance at its peak.[/p][/quote]Hi wiz, yes got to agree with your summing up Re: William Patey! Seems the media including that awful rag assumed as no one from the club bothered to set the record straight then we must be guilty? Shocking really, the clubs name is being dragged through the mud and we are despised by fans of other clubs yet our chairman hasn't seen fit to put the record straight! Reminds me of Nero fiddling while Rome burned. I really hope the club do take legal action against that newspaper if only to stop the scurrilous accusations against us!!!Lazaat

Rebel_phish wrote:
Like many, I watch the FLS (usually on IPlayer so as to skip to the L1 bit - the Town in particular) and see it as just a way of seeing small clips of our rivals and also rans. Whilst I also would like to see/here the comments of the pundits and managers, I know that they are heavily edited to suit the mood of the day/week. Last season, the BBC did post highlight clips of each match on their web site. At least that way you watch them devoid of any bias or derogitory comments. Anyone know if Late Kick Off show is comming back. We do get a bit more coverage and gossip on there and Leroy R does seem to tell it as it is on that show.

I've recently discovered that highlights of all Football League games are on skysports.com. It's much easier than skipping to the right part of the FL show.

Thanks, I had discovered that over Christmas.

Still a glutton for punishment though, cos someday FLS and Claridge may be complimentary to us

[quote][p][bold]stfclondon[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
Like many, I watch the FLS (usually on IPlayer so as to skip to the L1 bit - the Town in particular) and see it as just a way of seeing small clips of our rivals and also rans. Whilst I also would like to see/here the comments of the pundits and managers, I know that they are heavily edited to suit the mood of the day/week. Last season, the BBC did post highlight clips of each match on their web site. At least that way you watch them devoid of any bias or derogitory comments. Anyone know if Late Kick Off show is comming back. We do get a bit more coverage and gossip on there and Leroy R does seem to tell it as it is on that show.[/p][/quote]I've recently discovered that highlights of all Football League games are on skysports.com. It's much easier than skipping to the right part of the FL show.[/p][/quote]Thanks, I had discovered that over Christmas.
Still a glutton for punishment though, cos someday FLS and Claridge may be complimentary to usRebel_phish

He told BBC Wiltshire: "It wasn't easy to handle the situation - it was an emergency. When we decided to order the pizza there were about 60 people but then it became over 200. It wasn't enough because in one minute they had finished the pizza."

- I suppose if you want to nit-pick you could say he did not plan very well, as he only bought enough for 60 people but 200 turned up!!

It's not all muck-raking with the BBC. This is from their transfer updates on their main site today :
"Swindon manager Paolo Di Canio rewarded volunteers who helped Saturday's match against Shrewsbury go ahead by buying them all pizza.
He told BBC Wiltshire: "It wasn't easy to handle the situation - it was an emergency. When we decided to order the pizza there were about 60 people but then it became over 200. It wasn't enough because in one minute they had finished the pizza."
- I suppose if you want to nit-pick you could say he did not plan very well, as he only bought enough for 60 people but 200 turned up!!Another view

Reports are that Celtic will bid for Austin..
Lets hope this happends as we will need the money just to player the wages in Feb lol

Any proceeds from a possible Austin deal may have to go to Andrew Black?

[quote][p][bold]DarrenSTFCRomain[/bold] wrote:
IF Hooper is sold to Norwich from Celtic..
Reports are that Celtic will bid for Austin..
Lets hope this happends as we will need the money just to player the wages in Feb lol[/p][/quote]Any proceeds from a possible Austin deal may have to go to Andrew Black?Lazaat

DarrenSTFCRomain wrote: IF Hooper is sold to Norwich from Celtic.. Reports are that Celtic will bid for Austin.. Lets hope this happends as we will need the money just to player the wages in Feb lol

Any proceeds from a possible Austin deal may have to go to Andrew Black?

Well if thats the case then were screwed.

Any news on Holland injury ?

[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DarrenSTFCRomain[/bold] wrote: IF Hooper is sold to Norwich from Celtic.. Reports are that Celtic will bid for Austin.. Lets hope this happends as we will need the money just to player the wages in Feb lol[/p][/quote]Any proceeds from a possible Austin deal may have to go to Andrew Black?[/p][/quote]Well if thats the case then were screwed.
Any news on Holland injury ?DarrenSTFCRomain

Reports are that Celtic will bid for Austin..
Lets hope this happends as we will need the money just to player the wages in Feb lol

Any proceeds from a possible Austin deal may have to go to Andrew Black?

Should Austin be sold, any monies paid to STFC would count as turnover. As I understand it, this should allow Paolo to use the balance of the existing kitty otherwise unavailable because of the 65% rule.

[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]DarrenSTFCRomain[/bold] wrote:
IF Hooper is sold to Norwich from Celtic..
Reports are that Celtic will bid for Austin..
Lets hope this happends as we will need the money just to player the wages in Feb lol[/p][/quote]Any proceeds from a possible Austin deal may have to go to Andrew Black?[/p][/quote]Should Austin be sold, any monies paid to STFC would count as turnover. As I understand it, this should allow Paolo to use the balance of the existing kitty otherwise unavailable because of the 65% rule.Oldhamred

The information I have been waiting for is news of anything decided in the board meeting which was going to be held over the weekend. Dunno if the weather got in the way but somebody somewhere must have a snippet or two.

News on Hollands is crucial, as the ongoing line up of the team is dependent on that. Hope its not as bad as first thought, the metatarsal word was used, yikes ! painful !!

The information I have been waiting for is news of anything decided in the board meeting which was going to be held over the weekend. Dunno if the weather got in the way but somebody somewhere must have a snippet or two.
News on Hollands is crucial, as the ongoing line up of the team is dependent on that. Hope its not as bad as first thought, the metatarsal word was used, yikes ! painful !!the wizard

jayden wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.

&quot;I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter!

First on here yesterday you muppet.

I thought what Lanky posted about you was unfair and un called for Jayden!

Cheers Lazaat i was making the point that i posted at 10 yesterday about it only Den and Wiz were intrested and a few others.Maybe i need to get a life and start tweeting .

[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jayden[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lanky[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]jayden[/bold] wrote:
Yes i was first to break this news yesterday it was a disgrace i wait our managers responce.[/p][/quote]"I was there first" - wow we have a hot shot journo posting, who must have been outside the ground with his notebook and "press" card tucked into his brown hat!
Let us know if you get any more exclusive scoops! Especially ones that aren't circulating hugely on Twitter![/p][/quote]First on here yesterday you muppet.[/p][/quote]I thought what Lanky posted about you was unfair and un called for Jayden![/p][/quote]Cheers Lazaat i was making the point that i posted at 10 yesterday about it only Den and Wiz were intrested and a few others.Maybe i need to get a life and start tweeting .jayden

Lanky wrote:
Calm down, it was just a little harmless joke! I just find it funny how people think mentioning a story first deserves some recognition and the need to point it out. Have a nice evening fellas

NO JOKES ON HERE MATE !!!!
you no the score ?.......

[quote][p][bold]Lanky[/bold] wrote:
Calm down, it was just a little harmless joke! I just find it funny how people think mentioning a story first deserves some recognition and the need to point it out. Have a nice evening fellas[/p][/quote]NO JOKES ON HERE MATE !!!!
you no the score ?.......DarrenSTFCRomain

Don't want to sound pessimistic but one comment to make re. SWP - if he's been brought in to sell the club then there's one big fly in the ointment as far as I'm concerned - any good salesman should know their product, and I can't see how they can attempt to impart the value of that product to a potential buyer without such knowledge.

Patey seems to know very little about football and care even less. This suggests that it will may be potential buyers whose main concern is outside the football world which may have shown the most interest. It's already been said some of the potential investors are from the property development world. If this is the case and we are bought out by one of these sorts of groups, we could potentially be back to square one, in terms of a backroom staff only concerned with what could be made out of the club in the short term, but with no real interest in the long term future.

I'm not being naive here - obviously you don't need an owner who particularly cares about football, as long as everyone can work with eachother (i.e. if the board want to make the business sustainable, look at other sources of revenue and can still fund the realistic ambitions of the club and leave the footballing side to footballing people, there won't be a problem). However it would surely help having at least some of the new investors if they had an interest in the football interests of the club).

One more point re. Patey's role - he was billed as coming to the club to seek new investors. It transpires now that AB wants to sell his majority, and people with experience in selling a football club have been brought in to help do this. Doesn't that make SWP a bit redundant? How much Black pays him is up to him of course, but it seems SWP may be doing more harm than good at the moment unless there's a LOT of stuff going on in the background which we don't know about (and this could well be the case).

My tuppence worth anyway.

Don't want to sound pessimistic but one comment to make re. SWP - if he's been brought in to sell the club then there's one big fly in the ointment as far as I'm concerned - any good salesman should know their product, and I can't see how they can attempt to impart the value of that product to a potential buyer without such knowledge.
Patey seems to know very little about football and care even less. This suggests that it will may be potential buyers whose main concern is outside the football world which may have shown the most interest. It's already been said some of the potential investors are from the property development world. If this is the case and we are bought out by one of these sorts of groups, we could potentially be back to square one, in terms of a backroom staff only concerned with what could be made out of the club in the short term, but with no real interest in the long term future.
I'm not being naive here - obviously you don't need an owner who particularly cares about football, as long as everyone can work with eachother (i.e. if the board want to make the business sustainable, look at other sources of revenue and can still fund the realistic ambitions of the club and leave the footballing side to footballing people, there won't be a problem). However it would surely help having at least some of the new investors if they had an interest in the football interests of the club).
One more point re. Patey's role - he was billed as coming to the club to seek new investors. It transpires now that AB wants to sell his majority, and people with experience in selling a football club have been brought in to help do this. Doesn't that make SWP a bit redundant? How much Black pays him is up to him of course, but it seems SWP may be doing more harm than good at the moment unless there's a LOT of stuff going on in the background which we don't know about (and this could well be the case).
My tuppence worth anyway.Swindon1984

Patey's role will be minor 84!the big question is how big a loss Black is prepared to take?he want's a very quick sale,admin has been uttered so any buyer will want a very good deal!knowing that Black want's out asap,so it's a game of poker and Blacks got a bum hand,because the buyer/s knows he wants a fast exit,Patey saying he wants a bidding war is cr@p!!Black has already shown his hand so the only bidding that there will be is Down,the Buyer/s will want a rock bottom price!!!!!!!!!!!

Patey's role will be minor 84!the big question is how big a loss Black is prepared to take?he want's a very quick sale,admin has been uttered so any buyer will want a very good deal!knowing that Black want's out asap,so it's a game of poker and Blacks got a bum hand,because the buyer/s knows he wants a fast exit,Patey saying he wants a bidding war is cr@p!!Black has already shown his hand so the only bidding that there will be is Down,the Buyer/s will want a rock bottom price!!!!!!!!!!!the don69

swindon 1984- some good comments on developers as Pompey have discoverd Chandrai or whatever his name is was only interested in the land around fratton park as he wants to build on it and couldnt give a stuff about the club. Patey worries me and what is his real objective is it just to get the best deal for the Black and stuff what happens afterwards to the club or is he genuinely going to get the best deal for club and Black.

The fact he isnt into football i guess he looks at us all as a load of plebs and he then moves on to his next role somewhere that is the impression i get with this guy.
Totally treats us with contempt and his diplomatic skills are zero form what i have heard from him so far.
I think we all need to be cautious as to his real target and what we will end with.
I hope the positive vibes coming out of Paolo are good signs and we get what we want and the investor we want who will move this club to the next level.
This club and us as fans have been dealt enough C**P over the years of what our club have been through by the people that have run it and its about time something good happens.
Weve had a temporary good period when fitton came in but now we need to sustain a longer period where this club is managed by the board and sustained to a more professional level.
I cant knock anyone like AB who has put money into our club and i thank him for that as im sure most fans would but we cannot go back to the dark days weve had in the past as i feel we will get the book thrown at us by the League.

swindon 1984- some good comments on developers as Pompey have discoverd Chandrai or whatever his name is was only interested in the land around fratton park as he wants to build on it and couldnt give a stuff about the club. Patey worries me and what is his real objective is it just to get the best deal for the Black and stuff what happens afterwards to the club or is he genuinely going to get the best deal for club and Black.
The fact he isnt into football i guess he looks at us all as a load of plebs and he then moves on to his next role somewhere that is the impression i get with this guy.
Totally treats us with contempt and his diplomatic skills are zero form what i have heard from him so far.
I think we all need to be cautious as to his real target and what we will end with.
I hope the positive vibes coming out of Paolo are good signs and we get what we want and the investor we want who will move this club to the next level.
This club and us as fans have been dealt enough C**P over the years of what our club have been through by the people that have run it and its about time something good happens.
Weve had a temporary good period when fitton came in but now we need to sustain a longer period where this club is managed by the board and sustained to a more professional level.
I cant knock anyone like AB who has put money into our club and i thank him for that as im sure most fans would but we cannot go back to the dark days weve had in the past as i feel we will get the book thrown at us by the League.LeGod

Lazaat wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!

The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!
The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etcGinge09

Oi Den! wrote: Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do! . Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.

Den, Here, Here!! Very well put. That was one of the big differences Andrew Fitton made. Clear, precise and no cover ups.....Just tell it how it is straight away. I loved the honesty, we as fans might not have liked it, but we always felt like we were getting the truth. And most importantly, before any of the other media had even wind of anything........ Louis :-((((

Den I don't think any criticism of Patey is unjust. It's all very well being a diplomat and with his experience he should have told the club to tell the fans how it is instead of waffling and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans and the media. He knew from day one why Black had brought him in and he should have in my opinion shared that information right from the start.
From this point on in my book he will be known as Sir KillBill!!

[quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do! . Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.[/p][/quote]Den, Here, Here!! Very well put. That was one of the big differences Andrew Fitton made. Clear, precise and no cover ups.....Just tell it how it is straight away. I loved the honesty, we as fans might not have liked it, but we always felt like we were getting the truth. And most importantly, before any of the other media had even wind of anything........ Louis :-(((([/p][/quote]Den I don't think any criticism of Patey is unjust. It's all very well being a diplomat and with his experience he should have told the club to tell the fans how it is instead of waffling and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans and the media. He knew from day one why Black had brought him in and he should have in my opinion shared that information right from the start.
From this point on in my book he will be known as Sir KillBill!!The Jockster

Lazaat wrote:
I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I did try finding it on line but no luck, can someone put a link up if it is available on line?

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote:
I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I did try finding it on line but no luck, can someone put a link up if it is available on line?Lazaat

The article and other comments deserve actions to be taken. However, statements, actions etc need to be carefully thought through before being released. No surprise from me therefore that nothing has been forth coming from SWP or the Club.

COYMR

The article and other comments deserve actions to be taken. However, statements, actions etc need to be carefully thought through before being released. No surprise from me therefore that nothing has been forth coming from SWP or the Club.
COYMROxon-Red

Lazaat wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!

The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc

FYI

Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning

http://i45.tinypic.c

om/212tnhu.jpg

Its well worth a look to those that are interested

[quote][p][bold]Ginge09[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!
The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc[/p][/quote]FYI
Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning
http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Its well worth a look to those that are interestedRebel_phish

Oi Den! wrote: Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do! . Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.

Den, Here, Here!! Very well put. That was one of the big differences Andrew Fitton made. Clear, precise and no cover ups.....Just tell it how it is straight away. I loved the honesty, we as fans might not have liked it, but we always felt like we were getting the truth. And most importantly, before any of the other media had even wind of anything........ Louis :-((((

Den I don't think any criticism of Patey is unjust. It's all very well being a diplomat and with his experience he should have told the club to tell the fans how it is instead of waffling and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans and the media. He knew from day one why Black had brought him in and he should have in my opinion shared that information right from the start. From this point on in my book he will be known as Sir KillBill!!

I didn't put it very well. What I meant was that all most of us can see is a bullshiitter, when he must be very much more than that. He and the club have only themselves to blame for the picture they've painted of him, as well as being partly culpable for the horrible stuff being printed yesterday.

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: Last post from me today. Sorry, I know I've hogged it a bit - and I have got work to do! . Wiz, I think you have touched on a very important point. The club has completely ballsed up the PR since Wray was sacked. From the moment Patey came in, we - and the media - have been forced to read between the lines on just about everything. This has led to much speculation, argument and possibly unjust characterising of Patey himself. In some ways the club has only itself to blame for allowing the circumstances that culminated in yesterday's shameful article. Watkins did make a statement last week, but by then the horse had already bolted. There should have been a clear statement made about the investors' intentions when Patey was appointed. This public mess could have been avoided then.[/p][/quote]Den, Here, Here!! Very well put. That was one of the big differences Andrew Fitton made. Clear, precise and no cover ups.....Just tell it how it is straight away. I loved the honesty, we as fans might not have liked it, but we always felt like we were getting the truth. And most importantly, before any of the other media had even wind of anything........ Louis :-(((([/p][/quote]Den I don't think any criticism of Patey is unjust. It's all very well being a diplomat and with his experience he should have told the club to tell the fans how it is instead of waffling and trying to pull the wool over the eyes of the fans and the media. He knew from day one why Black had brought him in and he should have in my opinion shared that information right from the start. From this point on in my book he will be known as Sir KillBill!![/p][/quote]I didn't put it very well. What I meant was that all most of us can see is a bullshiitter, when he must be very much more than that. He and the club have only themselves to blame for the picture they've painted of him, as well as being partly culpable for the horrible stuff being printed yesterday.Oi Den!

He told BBC Wiltshire: "It wasn't easy to handle the situation - it was an emergency. When we decided to order the pizza there were about 60 people but then it became over 200. It wasn't enough because in one minute they had finished the pizza."

- I suppose if you want to nit-pick you could say he did not plan very well, as he only bought enough for 60 people but 200 turned up!!

Paolo had probably hit the Football League pizza cap at 60, and Black made it clear that there was no more dough available for additional pizzas...

[quote][p][bold]Another view[/bold] wrote:
It's not all muck-raking with the BBC. This is from their transfer updates on their main site today :
"Swindon manager Paolo Di Canio rewarded volunteers who helped Saturday's match against Shrewsbury go ahead by buying them all pizza.
He told BBC Wiltshire: "It wasn't easy to handle the situation - it was an emergency. When we decided to order the pizza there were about 60 people but then it became over 200. It wasn't enough because in one minute they had finished the pizza."
- I suppose if you want to nit-pick you could say he did not plan very well, as he only bought enough for 60 people but 200 turned up!![/p][/quote]Paolo had probably hit the Football League pizza cap at 60, and Black made it clear that there was no more dough available for additional pizzas...madterrier

Lazaat wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!

The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc

FYI

Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning

http://i45.tinypic.c

om/212tnhu.jpg

Its well worth a look to those that are interested

Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.

[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginge09[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!
The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc[/p][/quote]FYI
Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning
http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Its well worth a look to those that are interested[/p][/quote]Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.the wizard

In defence of Patey, and the club's PR (or lack of), we should remember that he is only working two days a week. Hopefully he is spending most of those hours on finding new owners. And he has no knowledge of/experience of football (he's Scottish, remember).

That said, it's a pity Patey doesn't realise there is more to the role of Chairman than this. By leaving an information vacuum, he is allowing dumb or biased journalists to vacuum up whatever half truths and duff interpretations they wish.

And as the don69 says above, it's not the smart way to play your hand by revealing you want out by a certain time (Feb) and that the 'A' word is a possibility. But then we have said British troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, which means at least he has form in this area.

In defence of Patey, and the club's PR (or lack of), we should remember that he is only working two days a week. Hopefully he is spending most of those hours on finding new owners. And he has no knowledge of/experience of football (he's Scottish, remember).
That said, it's a pity Patey doesn't realise there is more to the role of Chairman than this. By leaving an information vacuum, he is allowing dumb or biased journalists to vacuum up whatever half truths and duff interpretations they wish.
And as the don69 says above, it's not the smart way to play your hand by revealing you want out by a certain time (Feb) and that the 'A' word is a possibility. But then we have said British troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, which means at least he has form in this area.madterrier

Am I right understanding both Jeremy and the club can sue these pariahs with seperate writs.
It seems to me this article is based on a reaction from Jeremy rather that a statement from the club that they will be taking any action.If that is the case thsy Sir William id sidestepping the issue because as he was not at the club when the aledged cheating took place. he doesn't feel any responsibility. As hev is the chairman I would have expected something more from him. Maybe a little too soon to form an objective opinion. Can't wait to read tomorrow's news to hear where we go from here.

Am I right understanding both Jeremy and the club can sue these pariahs with seperate writs.
It seems to me this article is based on a reaction from Jeremy rather that a statement from the club that they will be taking any action.If that is the case thsy Sir William id sidestepping the issue because as he was not at the club when the aledged cheating took place. he doesn't feel any responsibility. As hev is the chairman I would have expected something more from him. Maybe a little too soon to form an objective opinion. Can't wait to read tomorrow's news to hear where we go from here.old town robin

Lanky wrote:
Calm down, it was just a little harmless joke!
I just find it funny how people think mentioning a story first deserves some recognition and the need to point it out.

Have a nice evening fellas

Yeah you to ,.now weres me clucking medal for first place or statue.

[quote][p][bold]Lanky[/bold] wrote:
Calm down, it was just a little harmless joke!
I just find it funny how people think mentioning a story first deserves some recognition and the need to point it out.
Have a nice evening fellas[/p][/quote]Yeah you to ,.now weres me clucking medal for first place or statue.jayden

madterrier wrote:
In defence of Patey, and the club's PR (or lack of), we should remember that he is only working two days a week. Hopefully he is spending most of those hours on finding new owners. And he has no knowledge of/experience of football (he's Scottish, remember).

That said, it's a pity Patey doesn't realise there is more to the role of Chairman than this. By leaving an information vacuum, he is allowing dumb or biased journalists to vacuum up whatever half truths and duff interpretations they wish.

And as the don69 says above, it's not the smart way to play your hand by revealing you want out by a certain time (Feb) and that the 'A' word is a possibility. But then we have said British troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, which means at least he has form in this area.

We also have a very competent Chief Exec and men in media who know how to do presentations, so somehow we should be able to table a decent presentation which spells things out in a very clear manner, which tells the truth and how things are. Why are we shying away from this ? we should be doing this as a priority, especially after the article written by somebody deluded.

[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote:
In defence of Patey, and the club's PR (or lack of), we should remember that he is only working two days a week. Hopefully he is spending most of those hours on finding new owners. And he has no knowledge of/experience of football (he's Scottish, remember).
That said, it's a pity Patey doesn't realise there is more to the role of Chairman than this. By leaving an information vacuum, he is allowing dumb or biased journalists to vacuum up whatever half truths and duff interpretations they wish.
And as the don69 says above, it's not the smart way to play your hand by revealing you want out by a certain time (Feb) and that the 'A' word is a possibility. But then we have said British troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, which means at least he has form in this area.[/p][/quote]We also have a very competent Chief Exec and men in media who know how to do presentations, so somehow we should be able to table a decent presentation which spells things out in a very clear manner, which tells the truth and how things are. Why are we shying away from this ? we should be doing this as a priority, especially after the article written by somebody deluded.the wizard

Lazaat wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!

The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc

FYI

Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning

http://i45.tinypic.c

om/212tnhu.jpg

Its well worth a look to those that are interested

Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.

I've just read the whole article.

Oh My God.

Someone has to say something!

I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.

I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.

But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??

Louis :-(((

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginge09[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!
The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc[/p][/quote]FYI
Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning
http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Its well worth a look to those that are interested[/p][/quote]Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.[/p][/quote]I've just read the whole article.
Oh My God.
Someone has to say something!
I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.
I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.
But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??
Louis :-(((louiscassius

Lazaat wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!

The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc

FYI

Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning

http://i45.tinypic.c

om/212tnhu.jpg

Its well worth a look to those that are interested

Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.

I've just read the whole article.

Oh My God.

Someone has to say something!

I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.

I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.

But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??

Louis :-(((

Hey Louis, just think, lol, when the writs start flying Claridge may just totally shy away from even mentioning our name, manager, team. In his book we could completely disappear as he would be too scared even to mention us, we could become even more invisible on his radar than we already are, if that is at all possible. We could become known as "the team currently in third place", managed by "the Italian gentleman who used to play for West Ham and Sheff Weds" lol.

[quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginge09[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!
The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc[/p][/quote]FYI
Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning
http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Its well worth a look to those that are interested[/p][/quote]Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.[/p][/quote]I've just read the whole article.
Oh My God.
Someone has to say something!
I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.
I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.
But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??
Louis :-((([/p][/quote]Hey Louis, just think, lol, when the writs start flying Claridge may just totally shy away from even mentioning our name, manager, team. In his book we could completely disappear as he would be too scared even to mention us, we could become even more invisible on his radar than we already are, if that is at all possible. We could become known as "the team currently in third place", managed by "the Italian gentleman who used to play for West Ham and Sheff Weds" lol.the wizard

Lazaat wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!

The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc

FYI

Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning

http://i45.tinypic.c

om/212tnhu.jpg

Its well worth a look to those that are interested

Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.

I've just read the whole article.

Oh My God.

Someone has to say something!

I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.

I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.

But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??

Louis :-(((

Hey Louis, just think, lol, when the writs start flying Claridge may just totally shy away from even mentioning our name, manager, team. In his book we could completely disappear as he would be too scared even to mention us, we could become even more invisible on his radar than we already are, if that is at all possible. We could become known as &quot;the team currently in third place", managed by "the Italian gentleman who used to play for West Ham and Sheff Weds" lol.

Brilliant, Brilliant...Brillian
t!!

Hahahaha, that proper made me belly laugh.....

I remember 'Saints & Greavsy'.....

They hated us with a passion..

When i think Greavsy did a Sat pundit slot at the CG once in the eightees, i was sat right on the side of him and i heard the awful things he said about us........

As you can imagine.....i hated him from that moment onwards....

But your right, why does the football faternity hate us so.....??

So laughable...its unreal, if i didnt laugh i'd surely cry.......lol.

Nice one again Wizz, your the best!!

Louis :-)))))

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginge09[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!
The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc[/p][/quote]FYI
Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning
http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Its well worth a look to those that are interested[/p][/quote]Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.[/p][/quote]I've just read the whole article.
Oh My God.
Someone has to say something!
I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.
I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.
But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??
Louis :-((([/p][/quote]Hey Louis, just think, lol, when the writs start flying Claridge may just totally shy away from even mentioning our name, manager, team. In his book we could completely disappear as he would be too scared even to mention us, we could become even more invisible on his radar than we already are, if that is at all possible. We could become known as "the team currently in third place", managed by "the Italian gentleman who used to play for West Ham and Sheff Weds" lol.[/p][/quote]Brilliant, Brilliant...Brillian
t!!
Hahahaha, that proper made me belly laugh.....
I remember 'Saints & Greavsy'.....
They hated us with a passion..
When i think Greavsy did a Sat pundit slot at the CG once in the eightees, i was sat right on the side of him and i heard the awful things he said about us........
As you can imagine.....i hated him from that moment onwards....
But your right, why does the football faternity hate us so.....??
So laughable...its unreal, if i didnt laugh i'd surely cry.......lol.
Nice one again Wizz, your the best!!
Louis :-)))))louiscassius

Lazaat wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?

Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?

I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!

The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc

FYI

Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning

http://i45.tinypic.c

om/212tnhu.jpg

Its well worth a look to those that are interested

Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.

I've just read the whole article.

Oh My God.

Someone has to say something!

I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.

I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.

But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??

Louis :-(((

Hey Louis, just think, lol, when the writs start flying Claridge may just totally shy away from even mentioning our name, manager, team. In his book we could completely disappear as he would be too scared even to mention us, we could become even more invisible on his radar than we already are, if that is at all possible. We could become known as &quot;the team currently in third place", managed by "the Italian gentleman who used to play for West Ham and Sheff Weds" lol.

Like it wIz ,Like it.

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]louiscassius[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Rebel_phish[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Ginge09[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Lazaat[/bold] wrote: I suppose copyright laws would prevent someone from typing the article on here?[/p][/quote]Laz can you look at it online has anybody tried?[/p][/quote]I would presume - (please dont quote me) that if parts of the article are quoted word for word, are referenced correctly (Newspaper, author, page of newspaper, date of the newspaper) to make a point in an article, you should be ok!
The same as 'copyrighted' material is aloud to be used in a dissertation etc[/p][/quote]FYI
Lambourne Red posted a link to this image of a certain paper at 9:16 this morning
http://i45.tinypic.c
om/212tnhu.jpg
Its well worth a look to those that are interested[/p][/quote]Most excellent, opened it in a new tab and hit the magnify button, could read every despicable word. I hope J Wray hits them with every thing he can, sledge hammer included.[/p][/quote]I've just read the whole article.
Oh My God.
Someone has to say something!
I would love to see that writers face when a rit is lodged against his paper for deformation and Slander.
I do agree with other posters that suggest, we must only complain using factual evidence.
But, aggreivance must surely be lodged??
Louis :-((([/p][/quote]Hey Louis, just think, lol, when the writs start flying Claridge may just totally shy away from even mentioning our name, manager, team. In his book we could completely disappear as he would be too scared even to mention us, we could become even more invisible on his radar than we already are, if that is at all possible. We could become known as "the team currently in third place", managed by "the Italian gentleman who used to play for West Ham and Sheff Weds" lol.[/p][/quote]Like it wIz ,Like it.jayden

Swindon kept themselves firmly in the promotion race with a 2-0 home win over Shrewsbury and Thompson was a solid presence at the back as the Robins claimed their 14th clean sheet of the season - more than any other League One side. The 22-year-old also had a hand in Andy Williams' goal, picking up a stray clearance to set the wheels in motion.
and

Simon Ferry - Swindon

Ferry was another stand-out performer as Swindon beat Shrewsbury, creating opportunities from midfield and feeding the tricky Matt Ritchie and Gary Roberts out on the flanks. He also came close to scoring in the second half when his long-range free-kick almost snuck in at the near post.
Simon Ferry - Swindon

Smoebody loves us. just seen on SkySports Team of the Week
Nathan Thompson - Swindon
Swindon kept themselves firmly in the promotion race with a 2-0 home win over Shrewsbury and Thompson was a solid presence at the back as the Robins claimed their 14th clean sheet of the season - more than any other League One side. The 22-year-old also had a hand in Andy Williams' goal, picking up a stray clearance to set the wheels in motion.
and
Simon Ferry - Swindon
Ferry was another stand-out performer as Swindon beat Shrewsbury, creating opportunities from midfield and feeding the tricky Matt Ritchie and Gary Roberts out on the flanks. He also came close to scoring in the second half when his long-range free-kick almost snuck in at the near post.
Simon Ferry - SwindonOkus Road

Swindon1984 wrote:
Don't want to sound pessimistic but one comment to make re. SWP - if he's been brought in to sell the club then there's one big fly in the ointment as far as I'm concerned - any good salesman should know their product, and I can't see how they can attempt to impart the value of that product to a potential buyer without such knowledge.

Patey seems to know very little about football and care even less. This suggests that it will may be potential buyers whose main concern is outside the football world which may have shown the most interest. It's already been said some of the potential investors are from the property development world. If this is the case and we are bought out by one of these sorts of groups, we could potentially be back to square one, in terms of a backroom staff only concerned with what could be made out of the club in the short term, but with no real interest in the long term future.

I'm not being naive here - obviously you don't need an owner who particularly cares about football, as long as everyone can work with eachother (i.e. if the board want to make the business sustainable, look at other sources of revenue and can still fund the realistic ambitions of the club and leave the footballing side to footballing people, there won't be a problem). However it would surely help having at least some of the new investors if they had an interest in the football interests of the club).

One more point re. Patey's role - he was billed as coming to the club to seek new investors. It transpires now that AB wants to sell his majority, and people with experience in selling a football club have been brought in to help do this. Doesn't that make SWP a bit redundant? How much Black pays him is up to him of course, but it seems SWP may be doing more harm than good at the moment unless there's a LOT of stuff going on in the background which we don't know about (and this could well be the case).

My tuppence worth anyway.

Good point Swindon1984.

My view is that the chairman role is best suited to a person who is both 'football aware' and also 'business aware'. The person should be a good communicator to act as a go-between between board, manager and fans. It also probably deserves more than a figurehead style 2 days a week.

SWP's role seems to be more of a consultant and 99% focussed on the business side. Not really acting as a chairman as per my ideals above.

However when he secures a wonder deal and moves on straight after, having set us up with some mega bucks investor, I will be the first to thank him and wish him well. At the moment not impressed but his role is all about the sale so we should judge him on his results in due course.

[quote][p][bold]Swindon1984[/bold] wrote:
Don't want to sound pessimistic but one comment to make re. SWP - if he's been brought in to sell the club then there's one big fly in the ointment as far as I'm concerned - any good salesman should know their product, and I can't see how they can attempt to impart the value of that product to a potential buyer without such knowledge.
Patey seems to know very little about football and care even less. This suggests that it will may be potential buyers whose main concern is outside the football world which may have shown the most interest. It's already been said some of the potential investors are from the property development world. If this is the case and we are bought out by one of these sorts of groups, we could potentially be back to square one, in terms of a backroom staff only concerned with what could be made out of the club in the short term, but with no real interest in the long term future.
I'm not being naive here - obviously you don't need an owner who particularly cares about football, as long as everyone can work with eachother (i.e. if the board want to make the business sustainable, look at other sources of revenue and can still fund the realistic ambitions of the club and leave the footballing side to footballing people, there won't be a problem). However it would surely help having at least some of the new investors if they had an interest in the football interests of the club).
One more point re. Patey's role - he was billed as coming to the club to seek new investors. It transpires now that AB wants to sell his majority, and people with experience in selling a football club have been brought in to help do this. Doesn't that make SWP a bit redundant? How much Black pays him is up to him of course, but it seems SWP may be doing more harm than good at the moment unless there's a LOT of stuff going on in the background which we don't know about (and this could well be the case).
My tuppence worth anyway.[/p][/quote]Good point Swindon1984.
My view is that the chairman role is best suited to a person who is both 'football aware' and also 'business aware'. The person should be a good communicator to act as a go-between between board, manager and fans. It also probably deserves more than a figurehead style 2 days a week.
SWP's role seems to be more of a consultant and 99% focussed on the business side. Not really acting as a chairman as per my ideals above.
However when he secures a wonder deal and moves on straight after, having set us up with some mega bucks investor, I will be the first to thank him and wish him well. At the moment not impressed but his role is all about the sale so we should judge him on his results in due course.Wilesy

The Jockster wrote:
Just read the article an utter disgraceful piece of journalism undoubtedly fuelled by Chris very unWise's comments earlier in the week. E mail to the Editor on its way.

How are you mate?. We havent had a chat (LAUGH) for a while .

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
Just read the article an utter disgraceful piece of journalism undoubtedly fuelled by Chris very unWise's comments earlier in the week. E mail to the Editor on its way.[/p][/quote]How are you mate?. We havent had a chat (LAUGH) for a while .jayden

the don69 wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!!

Sounds good BUT stuff like this should be kept behind closed doors..

BUT it sounds better than what we had yesterday...

[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Sounds good BUT stuff like this should be kept behind closed doors..
BUT it sounds better than what we had yesterday...DarrenSTFCRomain

Oi Den! wrote: SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.

We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary. ... Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear. ... Let's agree to disagree on this one.

Fair enough. I think we do get that recognition. Our turn will come round again, possibly even this week - although as Tranmere are the home side they may be featured more strongly than us. The programme might have taken the view that we are likely to be featured a lot before the end of the season so there wasn't much point in making a big deal of us on Saturday. There is a balance to be struck. It would probably take only a couple of features on us within a few weeks for the BBC to be accused by fans of other clubs of putting out the Swindon Town Show!

Blimey Den, you're on fire today!

Excellent point about FLS and I'll calm down over Saturday's apparent snub by Claridge and Maniche.

I think there has been a lot of knicker twisting over the past few days and we could perhaps all do with waiting to see what has come of the Board meetings.

Whatever the outcome, over reaction isn't going to help and I wonder if a bit of over reaction in the past has contributed to the situation we now face?

[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]SAPFanSTFC[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Oi Den![/bold] wrote: SAP, the Football League Show is nothing more than light entertainment. Why anyone would want to take it seriously - for what it says or what it doesn't say - I do not understand. If Claridge or anyone else on the programme came out with an opinion along the lines of the potentially libellous nonsense in yesterday's Football League Paper, we would all have something to complain about. I don't see what relevance the programme has to this article. My point is that we have a serious matter on our hands and I see no point in blurring it with something completely irrelevant. It sometimes looks as if we are desperate to be liked.[/p][/quote]We're all different Oi Den....Like many, if I stay up late to watch the show, even given the small amount of time they devote outside of the Championship, it is nice to get some form of recognition that we exist...or even something more than a second rate commentary. ... Last Saturday was a joke with only 6 games on, so like many I feel peeved at the whole situation plus Claridge's history is there for all to see and hear. ... Let's agree to disagree on this one.[/p][/quote]Fair enough. I think we do get that recognition. Our turn will come round again, possibly even this week - although as Tranmere are the home side they may be featured more strongly than us. The programme might have taken the view that we are likely to be featured a lot before the end of the season so there wasn't much point in making a big deal of us on Saturday. There is a balance to be struck. It would probably take only a couple of features on us within a few weeks for the BBC to be accused by fans of other clubs of putting out the Swindon Town Show![/p][/quote]Blimey Den, you're on fire today!
Excellent point about FLS and I'll calm down over Saturday's apparent snub by Claridge and Maniche.
I think there has been a lot of knicker twisting over the past few days and we could perhaps all do with waiting to see what has come of the Board meetings.
Whatever the outcome, over reaction isn't going to help and I wonder if a bit of over reaction in the past has contributed to the situation we now face?mancrobin

Tranny Manager Ronnie Moore just said on 5 live,they've got the second lowest budget in league1,also he's looking forward to playing Swindon Saturday,after losing 5-0 and he said it should have been 10-0,they got a score to settle!!!!!!!!!!!

Tranny Manager Ronnie Moore just said on 5 live,they've got the second lowest budget in league1,also he's looking forward to playing Swindon Saturday,after losing 5-0 and he said it should have been 10-0,they got a score to settle!!!!!!!!!!!the don69

London Red wrote:
I have always wondered how they know exactly where in the pecking order they come
.
Is there some sort of official data available to clubs?

LOL very good point LR!

[quote][p][bold]London Red[/bold] wrote:
I have always wondered how they know exactly where in the pecking order they come
.
Is there some sort of official data available to clubs?[/p][/quote]LOL very good point LR!Lazaat

The Jockster wrote:
Hi Jayden I'm ok thanks just fired an Exocet e mail to the dorks at the football league paper perfectly polite and not abusive but stating that I hope JW takes them to the cleaners.

Good one,wonder if any of us will get replys.

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
Hi Jayden I'm ok thanks just fired an Exocet e mail to the dorks at the football league paper perfectly polite and not abusive but stating that I hope JW takes them to the cleaners.[/p][/quote]Good one,wonder if any of us will get replys.jayden

The Jockster wrote:
Hi Jayden I'm ok thanks just fired an Exocet e mail to the dorks at the football league paper perfectly polite and not abusive but stating that I hope JW takes them to the cleaners.

Good one,wonder if any of us will get replys.

Trouble is it may give that rag time to retract their comments before Wray can sue their arrses. Fans complaining to the the rag and giving out too much info will make them sit up and look at their legal implications and act before Wray goes for the jugular. Just a thought.

[quote][p][bold]jayden[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
Hi Jayden I'm ok thanks just fired an Exocet e mail to the dorks at the football league paper perfectly polite and not abusive but stating that I hope JW takes them to the cleaners.[/p][/quote]Good one,wonder if any of us will get replys.[/p][/quote]Trouble is it may give that rag time to retract their comments before Wray can sue their arrses. Fans complaining to the the rag and giving out too much info will make them sit up and look at their legal implications and act before Wray goes for the jugular. Just a thought.Di kanny oh

the don69 wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!!

Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?

[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?The Jockster

madterrier wrote:
In defence of Patey, and the club's PR (or lack of), we should remember that he is only working two days a week. Hopefully he is spending most of those hours on finding new owners. And he has no knowledge of/experience of football (he's Scottish, remember).

That said, it's a pity Patey doesn't realise there is more to the role of Chairman than this. By leaving an information vacuum, he is allowing dumb or biased journalists to vacuum up whatever half truths and duff interpretations they wish.

And as the don69 says above, it's not the smart way to play your hand by revealing you want out by a certain time (Feb) and that the 'A' word is a possibility. But then we have said British troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, which means at least he has form in this area.

To be fair to Patey, he did say in his interview the other day, that he is a lifelong Hibs fan.

And none of us know what he is doing behind the scenes, which he sure as hell will not and cannot discuss on here.

[quote][p][bold]madterrier[/bold] wrote:
In defence of Patey, and the club's PR (or lack of), we should remember that he is only working two days a week. Hopefully he is spending most of those hours on finding new owners. And he has no knowledge of/experience of football (he's Scottish, remember).
That said, it's a pity Patey doesn't realise there is more to the role of Chairman than this. By leaving an information vacuum, he is allowing dumb or biased journalists to vacuum up whatever half truths and duff interpretations they wish.
And as the don69 says above, it's not the smart way to play your hand by revealing you want out by a certain time (Feb) and that the 'A' word is a possibility. But then we have said British troops will leave Afghanistan by 2014, which means at least he has form in this area.[/p][/quote]To be fair to Patey, he did say in his interview the other day, that he is a lifelong Hibs fan.
And none of us know what he is doing behind the scenes, which he sure as hell will not and cannot discuss on here.joey butler

the don69 wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!!

Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?

What is an Oligarch??

[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?[/p][/quote]What is an Oligarch??Di kanny oh

Lol and lol I might have fired an Exocet across their bows but the dazzler would be firing scud missiles lol!!

[quote][p][bold]Steve. Brentford[/bold] wrote:
I hope my ol mucker Daz Romain hasnt e-mailed the editor i dont reckon it would work ;O)[/p][/quote]Lol and lol I might have fired an Exocet across their bows but the dazzler would be firing scud missiles lol!!The Jockster

the don69 wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!!

Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?

What is an Oligarch??

Someone with a pot of gold.

[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?[/p][/quote]What is an Oligarch??[/p][/quote]Someone with a pot of gold.mike1990

the don69 wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!!

Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?

What is an Oligarch??

A very, very rich Russian businessman.

Like Abramovich at Chelsea.

[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?[/p][/quote]What is an Oligarch??[/p][/quote]A very, very rich Russian businessman.
Like Abramovich at Chelsea.joey butler

[quote][p][bold]joey butler[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?[/p][/quote]What is an Oligarch??[/p][/quote]A very, very rich Russian businessman.
Like Abramovich at Chelsea.[/p][/quote]Also Joey,a very,very rich Russian businessman,who acquired his wealth by dubious means!LOL!!!!!!the don69

the don69 wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!!

Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?

What is an Oligarch??

A very, very rich Russian businessman.

Like Abramovich at Chelsea.

Thanks Joey never heard of that one before but like the thought of a bottomless pot of money. Just may be the new ground will become reality with a mega bucks Russian at the helm.

[quote][p][bold]joey butler[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?[/p][/quote]What is an Oligarch??[/p][/quote]A very, very rich Russian businessman.
Like Abramovich at Chelsea.[/p][/quote]Thanks Joey never heard of that one before but like the thought of a bottomless pot of money. Just may be the new ground will become reality with a mega bucks Russian at the helm.Di kanny oh

While I like the thought of stacks of cash, and don't we all, I've always enjoyed the seasons where we have strived for success. Everything just being bought and put on a plate seems to have a hollow ring to it. Sure, a new stadium would be nice, but would it have character if just built to serve. Four enclosed stands would be good, a roof over to stop inclement weather, wonderful, but it does little for atmosphere.
Having the choice of any player almost would make us like Chelski, do we want that, I don't think the faithful do. I've always seen us as being successful as a good solid mid table or just above CCC club that has a good reputation for Cup runs and upsets, a strong home record and being a decent place to come. Once you go above that when you stumble you fall, a very long way. Sorry to be a kill joy, but you need to think about it, and also if you go higher can we still afford Prem season tickets etc, Sixty quid, no thanks.

While I like the thought of stacks of cash, and don't we all, I've always enjoyed the seasons where we have strived for success. Everything just being bought and put on a plate seems to have a hollow ring to it. Sure, a new stadium would be nice, but would it have character if just built to serve. Four enclosed stands would be good, a roof over to stop inclement weather, wonderful, but it does little for atmosphere.
Having the choice of any player almost would make us like Chelski, do we want that, I don't think the faithful do. I've always seen us as being successful as a good solid mid table or just above CCC club that has a good reputation for Cup runs and upsets, a strong home record and being a decent place to come. Once you go above that when you stumble you fall, a very long way. Sorry to be a kill joy, but you need to think about it, and also if you go higher can we still afford Prem season tickets etc, Sixty quid, no thanks.the wizard

the wizard wrote:
While I like the thought of stacks of cash, and don't we all, I've always enjoyed the seasons where we have strived for success. Everything just being bought and put on a plate seems to have a hollow ring to it. Sure, a new stadium would be nice, but would it have character if just built to serve. Four enclosed stands would be good, a roof over to stop inclement weather, wonderful, but it does little for atmosphere.
Having the choice of any player almost would make us like Chelski, do we want that, I don't think the faithful do. I've always seen us as being successful as a good solid mid table or just above CCC club that has a good reputation for Cup runs and upsets, a strong home record and being a decent place to come. Once you go above that when you stumble you fall, a very long way. Sorry to be a kill joy, but you need to think about it, and also if you go higher can we still afford Prem season tickets etc, Sixty quid, no thanks.

Here's one for you Wiz!cheapest season at Arsenal £985,most expensive £1,995 say no more!!!!!!!

[quote][p][bold]the wizard[/bold] wrote:
While I like the thought of stacks of cash, and don't we all, I've always enjoyed the seasons where we have strived for success. Everything just being bought and put on a plate seems to have a hollow ring to it. Sure, a new stadium would be nice, but would it have character if just built to serve. Four enclosed stands would be good, a roof over to stop inclement weather, wonderful, but it does little for atmosphere.
Having the choice of any player almost would make us like Chelski, do we want that, I don't think the faithful do. I've always seen us as being successful as a good solid mid table or just above CCC club that has a good reputation for Cup runs and upsets, a strong home record and being a decent place to come. Once you go above that when you stumble you fall, a very long way. Sorry to be a kill joy, but you need to think about it, and also if you go higher can we still afford Prem season tickets etc, Sixty quid, no thanks.[/p][/quote]Here's one for you Wiz!cheapest season at Arsenal £985,most expensive £1,995 say no more!!!!!!!the don69

You betta not be taking the pizza out of me Corleone, or u be sleeping with the fishes in Coate Water.

[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]joey butler[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?[/p][/quote]What is an Oligarch??[/p][/quote]A very, very rich Russian businessman.
Like Abramovich at Chelsea.[/p][/quote]Also Joey,a very,very rich Russian businessman,who acquired his wealth by dubious means!LOL!!!!!![/p][/quote]Don,
You betta not be taking the pizza out of me Corleone, or u be sleeping with the fishes in Coate Water.joey butler

When I was working I could afford it, but £60 a game is OTT. Serious economies like burning candles for a start, lol, and I'd have to find somewhere cheaper than Lidl as well, so no more Perlenbecker.

I've made the decision to make some economies here but for sure like many I can't afford big season ticket prices, I'd have to start being very selective on which games I'd watch, and that isn't the sort of support I want to give this club.

don,
When I was working I could afford it, but £60 a game is OTT. Serious economies like burning candles for a start, lol, and I'd have to find somewhere cheaper than Lidl as well, so no more Perlenbecker.
I've made the decision to make some economies here but for sure like many I can't afford big season ticket prices, I'd have to start being very selective on which games I'd watch, and that isn't the sort of support I want to give this club.the wizard

I've just read the league one paper article. It's very short rather than a full exposé with any interviews or factual information. Having said that, I've written my email to the editor. Certainly money helps bring success but it doesn't buy it, nor is it cheating. As far as I'm aware the only creditors to the club are the owners and this portion of debt would be 'purchased' by any new owners and either written off or issued as 'loan notes' (IOU's). Clubs only enter administration if their creditors call on what is due to them. Since the creditors are the owners, I'm not even sure administration is even technically possible, it'd be like asking yourself for ten quid to pay off that ten quid you owe someone. I've come to the conclusion that any new buyer will be asking Mr Black (a great benefactor to our club) to write off a large portion of that debt he owes himself. Mr Black will try to limit the amount he has to write off by 'selling' the positivity of the teams current position, form, players and talismanic manager. The clubs future ought to be a safe one; I for one am grateful for two trips to Wembley and a a league title, it's given us all some light in the darkness.

I've just read the league one paper article. It's very short rather than a full exposé with any interviews or factual information. Having said that, I've written my email to the editor. Certainly money helps bring success but it doesn't buy it, nor is it cheating. As far as I'm aware the only creditors to the club are the owners and this portion of debt would be 'purchased' by any new owners and either written off or issued as 'loan notes' (IOU's). Clubs only enter administration if their creditors call on what is due to them. Since the creditors are the owners, I'm not even sure administration is even technically possible, it'd be like asking yourself for ten quid to pay off that ten quid you owe someone. I've come to the conclusion that any new buyer will be asking Mr Black (a great benefactor to our club) to write off a large portion of that debt he owes himself. Mr Black will try to limit the amount he has to write off by 'selling' the positivity of the teams current position, form, players and talismanic manager. The clubs future ought to be a safe one; I for one am grateful for two trips to Wembley and a a league title, it's given us all some light in the darkness.Fernham Red

A rich scumbag who acquired recently privatized Russian business at a fraction of their true worth once shock therapy was introduced (i.e. the common people were given shares in previously nationalised businesses, couldn't afford to live and had no choice but to sell them off to the oligarchs, who in turn became even more fantastically wealthy than before). They were also known for bootlegging illegal goods into the Soviet Union under communist rule. Cold war history not my strong point so apologies if there're some glaring ommissions from that. Agreed, dubious means indeed though.

[quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote:
[quote][p][bold]joey butler[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]Di kanny oh[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]The Jockster[/bold] wrote: [quote][p][bold]the don69[/bold] wrote: Sam says on Twitter two foreign parties,discussing the possibility of taking over,could be a Sheik and an Oligarch?going head to head!LOL!!!!!!![/p][/quote]Oil well we'll just have to wait and see?[/p][/quote]What is an Oligarch??[/p][/quote]A very, very rich Russian businessman. Like Abramovich at Chelsea.[/p][/quote]Also Joey,a very,very rich Russian businessman,who acquired his wealth by dubious means!LOL!!!!!![/p][/quote]A rich scumbag who acquired recently privatized Russian business at a fraction of their true worth once shock therapy was introduced (i.e. the common people were given shares in previously nationalised businesses, couldn't afford to live and had no choice but to sell them off to the oligarchs, who in turn became even more fantastically wealthy than before). They were also known for bootlegging illegal goods into the Soviet Union under communist rule. Cold war history not my strong point so apologies if there're some glaring ommissions from that. Agreed, dubious means indeed though.Swindon1984

I read these comments, but rarely actually posy... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote:

I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.

Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.

His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.

He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered".

I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again.

I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections:

"Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping."
"... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? "
"Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally"

To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact:

On "somebody else was going unpaid":

The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies
intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw
indon-town-football-
company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT:

* Owe any monies to HMRC
* Have a bank overdraft
* Have any major creditor issues

In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few).

On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally":

Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article).

I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules?

Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous.

I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent.

Yours sincerely,

Tom xxx, ex-reader

I read these comments, but rarely actually posy... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote:
I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.
Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.
His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.
He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.
David Emery
From: Tom **** [mailto:****@****.co
m]
Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23
To: David.emery@theleagu
epaper.com
Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea
guepaper.com
Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013
Dear Mr Emery,
I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered".
I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again.
I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections:
"Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping."
"... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? [League 2]"
"Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally"
To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact:
On "somebody else was going unpaid":
The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies
intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw
indon-town-football-
company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT:
* Owe any monies to HMRC
* Have a bank overdraft
* Have any major creditor issues
http://www.thisisswi
ndontownfc.co.uk/new
s/headlines/10170172
.Watkins_sees_Town_a
s_unique_investment_
opportunity/
In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few).
On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally":
Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article).
I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules?
Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous.
I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent.
Yours sincerely,
Tom xxx, ex-readerReading_Robin

Further to all this sorry saga, I was pleasantly surprised to recieve the following email at 1130 this morning from David Emery the FL Ed:

understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.

Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.

His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.

He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

David Emery

We can only await the formal apology and see what lies ahead, but I appreciate Emery's response.

Onwards and upwards.

Further to all this sorry saga, I was pleasantly surprised to recieve the following email at 1130 this morning from David Emery the FL Ed:
understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.
Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.
His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.
He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.
David Emery
We can only await the formal apology and see what lies ahead, but I appreciate Emery's response.
Onwards and upwards.John Young's Grumpy

Reading_Robin wrote:
I read these comments, but rarely actually posy... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done:

On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote:

I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.

Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.

His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.

He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.

David Emery

From: Tom ****
Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23
To: David.emery@theleagu

epaper.com
Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea

guepaper.com
Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013

Dear Mr Emery,

I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled &quot;Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered".

I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again.

I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections:

"Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping."
"... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? "
"Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally"

To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact:

On "somebody else was going unpaid":

The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies

intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw

indon-town-football-

company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT:

* Owe any monies to HMRC
* Have a bank overdraft
* Have any major creditor issues

http://www.thisisswi

ndontownfc.co.uk/new

s/headlines/10170172

.Watkins_sees_Town_a

s_unique_investment_

opportunity/

In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few).

On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally":

Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article).

I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules?

Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous.

I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent.

Yours sincerely,

Tom xxx, ex-reader

Good letter Tom....I should have copied yours! :-)

[quote][p][bold]Reading_Robin[/bold] wrote:
I read these comments, but rarely actually posy... just thought it might be interesting for people that I've had a response from the editor... here's my complaint and the response in full it's probably a standard response, but at least we should be getting an apology.. just hope not too much damage has been done:
On Tue, Jan 22, 2013 at 12:02 PM, David Emery wrote:
I understand your complaint fully and we are in the process of making remedies. Chris Dunlavy is writing an apology in the paper and we have contacted Swindon Town FC.
Ironically, Chris Dunlavy has always been a champion of Swindon; in this instance his zeal to criticise clubs who live beyond their means has carried him away to make clearly unfounded, and deeply regretted, statements about the club.
His intention had been to raise the wider issue of insolvency and debt in football, and more precisely the need for clubs to move towards self-sustainability.
He saw Sir William Patey’s reported comments about administration and used this as the basis for his remarks. He chose the wrong target.
David Emery
From: Tom **** [mailto:****@****.co
m]
Sent: 22 January 2013 11:23
To: David.emery@theleagu
epaper.com
Cc: chris.dunlavy@thelea
guepaper.com
Subject: The Football League Paper - Sunday 20th January 2013
Dear Mr Emery,
I am writing in reference to the article in this week's issue of your publication titled "Swindon: the 'cheats' who really prospered".
I am a regular reader of your publication. As a supporter and member of a football club outside of the Premier League (Swindon Town FC), printed news for all but the transfer of some player or another to a Premier League team is impossible to find in the mainstream press, and your newspaper, in my opinion fills a necessary gap. Unfortunately, after reading the above article on Sunday, I will not be purchasing The Football League Paper again.
I am disappointed that, as editor, you allowed a piece with such obvious lack of evidential substance to be printed. This article represents lazy, sensationalist journalism, and is incorrect in the bare facts of the article. I am especially referring to the following sections:
"Every time Swindon added to their wage bill (currently around £3m a year), they knew somebody else was going unpaid. They were spending money they didn't have, otherwise known as financial doping."
"... how would you feel knowing Swindon virtually cheated their way out of the division? [League 2]"
"Nevertheless, the fact remains that the Robins have behaved immorally"
To the above quotations from the article, I would like to make clear the following points of fact:
On "somebody else was going unpaid":
The debts owed by Swindon Town Football Club are owed to the majority shareholders of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd http://www.companies
intheuk.co.uk/ltd/sw
indon-town-football-
company, the Board members of Swindon Town Football Club have stated in the local and national media that the football club does NOT:
* Owe any monies to HMRC
* Have a bank overdraft
* Have any major creditor issues
http://www.thisisswi
ndontownfc.co.uk/new
s/headlines/10170172
.Watkins_sees_Town_a
s_unique_investment_
opportunity/
In this respect, the financing of Swindon Town FC is not dissimilar to that of Chelsea Football Club or Manchester City Football Club in the Premier League or A.F.C Bournemouth in League One (to mention just a few).
On "virtually cheated their way out of the division" and "have behaved immorally":
Swindon Town Football Club are set annual budgets by their holdings company in line with the financial fair-play rules in force in the Football League. Swindon Town are allowed to work within those budgets, and the fact that the Football Club has owners who are wealthy and are prepared to set high budgets, funded from their own pockets is immaterial. Whilst it is true that Swindon Town FC were placed under a transfer embargo earlier this season for breaching the financial fair play rules, this was a result of tribunal decisions on the transfers of Troy Archibald-Henville and James Collins, where transfer fees were instructed to be paid up front and not in installments as the club anticipated, once under embargo, the club's owners made a capital investment into the Swindon Town FC to bring player spending within the agreed percentage of total revenue, thus bringing the club out of embargo. Swindon Town Football Club faced no such sanctions during the previous season, when were supposed to have "cheated" their way out of the division (according to your article).
I would also like an explanation as to how the club has acted immorally. As stated above, majority of the reported £13m debt is owed as unsecured loans to the directors (current and previous) of Swindon Town Football Company Ltd, and not to minor creditors, suppliers, local small businesses, etc. How can it be immoral to operate within budgets set forth by by the club's owners and within the restrictions of the Football League's financial fair play rules?
Given that it is public knowledge that Andrew Black (majority shareholder) is actively seeking new owners for Swindon Town Football Club, and that a process of due diligence is about to begin, the story published in your newspaper, being based on opinion and lacking evidential substance as previously mentioned is not only irresponsible, but could also be construed by Swindon Town FC as libelous.
I stated above that I would not be purchasing your publication again, and this is not entirely true... I will be buying The Football League Paper one last time on Sunday in the hope of seeing a retraction of the article and apology to Swindon Town Football Club, their supporters, and potential investors which consume as much of your paper in a section of equivalent prominence as the original article. After the issue to be published on Sunday 27th January, I will be cancelling my subscription with my local newsagent.
Yours sincerely,
Tom xxx, ex-reader[/p][/quote]Good letter Tom....I should have copied yours! :-)SAPFanSTFC